Tuesday, 6 March 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the commitment of the previous Liberal National Government to build the Burdekin Dam and (b) the belated agreement from the Prime Minister to honour the commitment in July 1983; (2) condemns the Minister for Resources and Energy for seeking to interefere in the associated works, acquisition, and disposal of land, which are properly the responsibility of the Queensland Government, and for using the Commonwealth Government's commitment to fund the dam, as a lever in a threat of blackmail if Queensland does not accede to Commonwealth conditions; and (3) calls on the Prime Minister to replace the Minister for Resources and Energy with a Minister who is able to work in co-operation with State governments. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Capricornia will second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Premier of Queensland has now signed the Medicare agreement; (b) he has accepted a suggestion made months ago by the Prime Minister that his claims regarding Medicare funding for Queensland be referred to the Grants Commission for consideration in future allocations; (c) he capitulated on the demand, which he had previously made a condition of signing, that determinations of the Grants Commission should be retrospective; (d) the Government of Queensland has also agreed to accept $6.77m, first offered under the Commonwealth hospital cost sharing winding-up agreement in 1980-81 by the former Commonwealth Government and subsequently offered by the present Government on the basis that the Queensland Government could have it any time they asked for it; (e) the Queensland Government accepted the $6.77m notwithstanding their previous insistence that they would never accept it because they wanted more; and (f) Queenslanders have not gained anything as a result of months of bluster and destabilisation by the Queensland Government while hundreds of thousands of dollars of Queensland taxpayers' funds have been used by the Queensland Government in a misleading and party political anti-Medicare advertising campaign; and (2) calls on the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation to pay back to the people of Queensland the hundreds of thousands of dollars appropriated from them in that party political campaign, and calls on the Government of Queensland to use the funds so recovered for improvements to the Queensland public health system. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling for any further notices, I remind honourable members that of late notices of motion have become rather lengthy and, I suspect, contain argument. I ask honourable members to watch this very carefully in the drafting of those notices. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry for the negative response to the draft Industries Assistance Commission report on the dried fruit industry; (2) notes that 1000 tonnes of heavily subsidised dried fruit has been dumped on to the Australian market from Greece and since this quantity represents 3% of the total annual domestic sales in Australia and will cause further hardship to an already severely depressed industry, and (3) calls upon the Minister to take positive action to implement anti-dumping procedures and countervailing duties to maintain stability within the industry until the IAC inquiry has been finalised. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that Nelson Mandala, leader of the African National Congress has been in prison for over a decade in South Africa, and (2) calls on the South African regime to immediately release Nelson Mandala and to begin serious negotiations with him and other black leaders for the achievement of a multi-racial democratic society in South Africa. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) that the Hobart Airport has a modern new international terminal costing approximately $1 million; (2) with dismay and anger, the failure of the Hawke Government to assist the Tasmanian Government in funding the necessary upgrading of the runways to international standard, and (3) this represents yet another glaring example of the Commonwealth Government in its campaign to disregard and neglect the State of Tasmania. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) that the Australian electorate is concerned about issues such as interest rates, housing, business profitability, unemployment, economic growth and industrial relations, all being issues on which the Government has performed well in its first year, and (2) with regret that the Opposition has failed to address these matters so far during the Autumn sittings. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Foreign Affairs for producing chaos in Australia' s foreign relations, namely by- (a) his supercilious attitude to the United States; (b) his active encouragement of totalitarian regimes in Vietnam and the Middle East; (c) his insensitivity to Australia's relationship with Japan, and (d) his naivety regarding Israel, and (2) expresses its concern that in every major foreign affairs issue, the Prime Minister has had to interfere to rectify the uncertainty created by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr HOLLIS(MacArthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that ABC radio station 2WN in Wollongong commenced broadcasting on 6 March 1959 and has provided over the past 25 years an excellent service to the people of the Illawarra; (2) congratulates the staff and all associated with 2WN for their dedicated service over these years; (3) condemns the previous Government for starving this vital regional service of funds, thus forcing them to be accommodated in totally inadequate premises, and (4) looks forward to a more realistic funding under the present Government, to enable this station to continue serving Australia's premier region, the Illawarra, in a manner fitting its status in Australia. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges- (1) the Government to consider urgently the lack of funding, by $10 million, to the Australian Wool Corporation, which was promised at the last election, and (2) Cabinet to urgently consider longer-term support for wool promotion to allow the Australian Wool Corporation and the International Wool Secretariat to prepare their promotion budgets. I would like the Prime Minister to take special note of that. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) sympathises with the people of Australia in that they are now paying to fund the Government's socialised Medicare program, and (2) expresses its concern at the way the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister continue to tell people that Medicare is good for them when the people know differently. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that despite constant pressure from the Member for Hume, the electorate of Hume still has only 2 Medicare offices, and (2) calls on the Minister for Health to require Medicare to ensure that the residents of the Hume electorate are given a better deal. Mr PEACOCK —I remind the Prime Minister that at the National Press Club last Friday and again yesterday he refused to answer whether a new capital gains tax would be introduced by his Government. I again refer the Prime Minister to his election promise that 'there will be no new capital gains tax'. Does the Prime Minister's continued refusal to confirm that he will keep his commitment mean that there will be a new capital gains tax and Federal death duties? Mr HAWKE —I have nothing to add to the answer I gave in this place yesterday. Mr SIMMONS —My question is also directed to the popular Prime Minister. Is the question raised by the Age tapes of possible judicial misbehaviour by a judge a matter for this House? Mr HAWKE —The House will recall that this matter arose yesterday in Question Time when the Leader of the Opposition referred to an answer the Attorney-General had just given in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition, in asking me a question, gave a very incomplete statement of what the Attorney-General had said. In so doing he gave a quite misleading impression of the Attorney's views. Specifically he cited the Attorney-General in support of his demand that the Age tapes and transcripts should be tabled when, of course, the Attorney's views are the opposite. Let me explain the facts as they were put by the Attorney-General to the Senate yesterday. Whether something is a matter of judicial misbehaviour in relation to section 72 of the Constitution is, of course, a matter for this Parliament. However, it is absolutely clear, and the Attorney-General explained this to the Senate yesterday, that Parliament is not at liberty to apply any criterion that takes its fancy to determine what misbehaviour might mean. As the Solicitor- General Dr Gavan Griffith pointed out in his opinion, Parliament is very circumscribed as to the matters it can take into account. This is supported by the debates of the Australian Constitutional Convention. What the Solicitor-General's opinion makes perfectly clear and what the Attorney-General pointed out yesterday is that there are only two sorts of circumstances when it would be appropriate for Parliament to consider removal for misbehaviour. These are: First, some misbehaviour attaching to the performance of the judge in his judicial office-there is no possible suggestion that this is an issue in this case-and, second, misbehaviour in the sense of criminal misconduct of such a character that it would be inappropriate for a judge to stay in office. In the opinion of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Temby and the New South Wales Solicitor-General there is no question of any criminal misconduct by the judge, let alone criminal misconduct that would lead to a consideration of removal from office. Those are the facts. Yesterday in Question Time the Attorney-General put those facts to the Senate, exactly as I have put them. Yet we had the extraordinary situation in Question Time yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition in this place, by implication, totally misrepresented the views of the Attorney-General. All honourable members of this House will recall just how this misrepresentation arose. It arose because the Leader of the National Party went up to the Opposition Leader at the table and fed him a line, a line totally contrary to the facts but which the Leader of the Opposition chose to accept. Let every member of this House and every member of the Australian public understand clearly just what sort of scenario the Opposition is trying to establish in this case. What are the facts? The facts are these: First, there are illegal tapings, a breaking of the law has taken place-and the tapes, where there are tapes, are unauthenticated. Secondly, there are transcripts where there are no tapes at all to back up the transcripts. Thirdly, that what has happened is in fact anonymous-no identification of any person involved with the taking of the tapes. Fourthly, this is something that happened in 1979-80; and fifthly, and comprising all of those facts, this is a gross invasion of the privacy of citizens of this country. Mr Speaker, those are the facts and what this discredited Opposition would have us do is this: Where we have, as I say, a breaking of the law in the taking of the tape, no authentication, anonymity, something that is alleged to have happened back in 1979-80, all of it involving a gross invasion of privacy-on that basis-the Opposition would have this Parliament then step in and impugn the reputation of citizens of this country. I know that all members of the Australian public will repudiate that sort of scenario which is put forward by this totally discredited Opposition which, by common consent, has failed to discharge the legitimate functions of Opposition and is now seeking to establish in this country a scenario where people can break the law, invade the privacy of citizens, have total anonymity involved in who was doing the taping of the tapes , have the gross invasion of privacy-on that basis, where all those things are done-then immediately the Opposition would have this Parliament come in and impugn the character and integrity of citizens whose privacy has been invaded by a process of the breaking of the law. I say to the Opposition, and I know that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people will say: 'That is the sort of scenario that you, the discredited Opposition, may like to pursue, but it is totally unacceptable to this Government and totally unacceptable to the people of Australia'. Mr MOORE —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In the spirit of the one- year celebrations I remind him of the policy statement made by the Prime Minister that tax cuts would be provided for all taxpayers on an income of up to $60,000 and that more than 99 per cent of taxpayers would receive a tax cut. How does the Treasurer square that promise made a year ago with the comments made this morning by the Secretary of the Australian Taxpayers Association, Mr Eric Risstrom, that in the year just passed Australian taxpayers have had more personal tax rises in any one year since the Second World War? Bearing in mind the size of the government deficit at the moment, will he give an undertaking that this deficit will not be reduced by further personal tax increases? Mr KEATING —It is simply nonsense in the context of the fiscal inheritance left to this Government by the incompetence of the former Government to suggest that it would have been in the slightest respect economically responsible to have contemplated-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Treasurer wait till the House comes to order. It is Question Time that is being wasted. Mr KEATING —It would have been totally irresponsible in an economic sense to have contemplated tax cuts in the context of the funding of the deficit of that magnitude. Quite responsibly, the Prime Minister, as the then Leader of the Opposition, said in the last couple of days of the election campaign that, if the fiscal deterioration was more than we anticipated, that policy would be subject to review. If I were the Opposition, I would be very careful in taking to my breast Mr Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association. I am sure the former Treasurer's attitude to Mr Risstrom is one of more caution about his capacities than that of the honourable member for Ryan. Honourable members may recall that Mr Risstrom went on a great splurge of publicity after the introduction of the Budget when he published tax tables and made statements from which he had to withdraw. Honourable members may also have noticed that we have heard virtually nothing from him since that day until yesterday. What we find has re-emerged from Mr Risstrom is the same conceptual error-he repeated it yesterday-which he made when he first focused upon the Government's tax changes in his comments on the 1983-84 Budget. Let me indicate where those conceptual errors have taken place. The first is that Mr Risstrom calculates the impact of the Medicare tax changes without in any way mentioning the fact that this, of course, replaces the costs which were formerly borne by taxpayers in paying for private health insurance. The second error relates to the home loan interest rebate when he did not mention that, of course, it has been replaced by the first home owners assistance scheme which focuses directly to the people who need it the sort of assistance to get their first home-up to $7,000 per taxpayer. If, indeed, those two factors are discounted from the tax change, we find the total tax increase is about 7 per cent over the previous year, which is less than the estimated increase in wages and salaries. So not only is Mr Risstrom wrong but also he is wrong for the second time this year. Given the fact that his retraction at the end of his last foray into tax changes was such a humiliating experience for him, I would have thought that he would have taken a back seat until the next Budget to try to recover his position. To get the tax increase in context, let me just indicate that the personal tax increase in 1980 -81 over the previous year was 16.6 per cent, in 1981-82 it was 21 per cent and in 1982-83 it was 8.2 per cent. With the Medicare and housing rebate discounting , this year it is 5.8 per cent in respect of personal taxation which, of course, indicates that the whole basis of the claim falls to the ground and the Opposition should look very carefully and do some work itself before it decides to repeat Mr Risstrom's fallacious claims. Mr MILDREN —Has the Minister for Transport received complaints from potato growers in Victoria, particularly in my electorate of Ballarat and that of my colleague, the honourable member for McMillan, that they are experiencing unfair competition from potatoes transported from Tasmania with the assistance of subsidies under the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme? If so, can the Minister say what is being done to address this apparent imbalance in interstate trade? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member has made representations to me, as has his colleague the honourable member for McMillan, on behalf of potato growers in Victoria and in respect of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. Mr Goodluck —Oh! Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, the honourable member is not doing his job on it very well. There have been representations from both Victorian and Tasmanian industry and primary sector interests in respect of this scheme. There are serious problems associated with the scheme, problems of undercompensation in respect of freight subsidies for some commodities and problems of overcompensation in respect of other commodities. It does not help the situation to have Liberal representatives in this Parliament constantly undermining the operation of the scheme and exaggerating and speculating upon its continuation and the rates which will be payable. This issue is one that the previous Government could not face up to. It had a couple of goes, but it could not make a decision about it. If we look at the record we find that the Opposition spokesman on transport, the honourable member for Hume, believes that Tasmania should be transferred to New Zealand. That is his solution. He says that we should get rid of the Australian National Line. He has proposed that ANL, which provides the principal freight service to Tasmania, be disposed of. The Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England, performed by fathering the first loss by ANL. Let us go further and consider the Tasmanian Liberal members. The honourable member for Bass has his own scheme. He devised it after the writs were issued last year. He announced it and he expects us to implement his scheme, a scheme which his own Government could not implement in seven years. The honourable member for Braddon has a better idea. He says: 'I think that high cost transport service to Tasmania should be subsidised, and also that there should be a few more female crew members on the Empress of Australia'. I do not know what that has to do with transport services , but that was his contribution. The honourable member for Franklin believed that private enterprise could do it best of all, but the honourable member for Braddon said: 'No, only sometimes'. The former Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir, said he had serious reservations about the scheme. As I have said, the issues involved are complex; it is a difficult problem. But the problem is vital to the future of Tasmanian industry. We promised during the election campaign that we would review the operations of the scheme and we promised it would be a public review of it. In respect of that review there has already been wide consultation with interest groups in Tasmania and Victoria and with the Tasmanian Government. I am pleased to be able to tell the House and the honourable member for Ballarat this afternoon that the appointment has been made of Judge Mervyn Everett as the president of the Inter-State Commission that will conduct the inquiry. He is a former Minister of the Tasmanian Government, a former Attorney-General and a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania of five years' standing. The second member is Professor Ted Kolsen of Queensland University, again a transport economist of some standing in this country. I am sure, the appointment will be welcomed. The third member of the commission will be announced in the near future. I conclude by saying that this Government deplores the undermining of business confidence in Tasmania by those who are sent in to represent that State. As far as we are concerned there will be a public review of the scheme; there will be every opportunity for all those people in Tasmania and other parts of Australia who are concerned about the scheme to put their point of view during the review. Mr CARLTON —I ask the Special Minister of State whether, four weeks ago, at another lunch at the National Press Club he said: There will not be a repetition of the cynical and disgraceful exercise of 12 months ago when the previous Government closed the rolls just 24 hours after the writs for the election were issued. In view of the fact that the New South Wales rolls closed yesterday at 6 o'clock , less than 24 hours after the State election was announced, has he issued a similar statement of condemnation of his colleague Premier Wran? Mr YOUNG —I am very pleased to get that question from the honourable member. He must be getting mixed up as to which parliament I am responsible for. In fact, I am responsible for the amendments that have been made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As honourable members know from information given during debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which I believe the Liberal Party supported after the outrageous behaviour of the squire from Nareen in 1983, no longer under Commonwealth law will any party be able to close the rolls under seven days. Our Party will not close the rolls before such time and neither will the honourable member's Party until such time as it has the numbers in the Parliament to be able to do so. That is only one of the features of the quite revolutionary changes we have made in the electoral laws of Australia. There is the redistribution being carried out by an independent electoral commission. My little friend on the opposite side, the honourable member for Moreton, took great interest in the last redistribution in Queensland. I do not know whether he will be so busy on the telephone this time. In fact, with the way Andrew is carrying on about the taping of telephones no one is game to pick up a telephone, including a lot of his mates. We are very proud of the changes which have been made to the electoral laws of Australia. We are very happy that the vast majority of those changes persuaded the Opposition to support them. I think those changes will hold the electoral laws of the Commonwealth Parliament in good stead for many years to come. Mr TICKNER —Can the Minister for Aviation advise the House of the major achievements which have been made in his portfolio during the first 12 months of office? Mr BEAZLEY —I invoke the spirit of Reg Swartz to assist me in this answer. First of all, I welcome the honourable member for Hughes to formal participation in Question Time and congratulate him on a very pertinent question of considerable national importance. Since we have been in office we have addressed three important areas in aviation: Firstly, the future requirements of the aviation infrastructure of this country; secondly, the current economic state of the industry in both the domestic and international sectors and also in the general aviation sector; and, thirdly, more effective community participation in the development of aviation policy. On the question of infrastructure, in the last Budget an allocation of some $ 620m, the highest amount yet in a forward program for five years for national airways and airports, was passed by this Government, including $178m for new projects. A new terminal is to be provided at Darwin Airport for $95m. A new terminal will also be built in Perth, at a total cost of $51m. New South Wales will see important improvements in its aviation network due to government decisions. The sum of $11.5m will be spent at Sydney Airport on taxiways to lessen congestion in peak periods. At Broken Hill, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Coffs Harbour, Armidale and Cooma there will be upgrading to F28 jet standard. We have also addressed the problems of the two major government airlines in regard to their capital requirements. As a result of that, they are now in a position to return to profitability and to provide even better services than they have to this point. In addition, we have approved an $860m forward purchasing program by Qantas Airways Ltd, which will again provide Qantas with an opportunity to compete more effectively with its competitors and will also ensure that Qantas has an opportunity to service certain routes which it does not service at the moment. Qantas services to north Queensland have been expanded to include Cairns from 31 March. Following the Prime Minister's recent visit to China, consideration is currently being given to air services between Australia and China. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It has long been the practice of this place that policy statements should not be made during Question Time. I suggest to you that a policy statement of this ilk should be made in its proper way by way of a ministerial statement. The Minister's answer should be drawn to a halt. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The point of order raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia is a matter of his opinion. I have to interpret the Standing Orders as they are given to me by the House. The Minister has not departed from those Standing Orders in giving his answer. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that honourable members opposite will be interested to know that, even though we do not have control of air fares, we have seriously addressed the problem of the difficulties experienced by many Australian travellers who want to travel and have not had the opportunity to do so because they are priced out of the market. A notable contribution in this regard has been made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I provided a considerable amount of detailed information on that topic last week, so I will not go through that again. In terms of the financial performance of the industry, we have had-- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's colleagues should not encourage him to go on forever. I hope that he is rounding off his answer. Mr BEAZLEY —In terms of the financial performance of the industry we have addressed ourselves in several ways to the cost impact of government. One has been to establish a task force for the creation of a national airports authority . The Secretary to my Department has also announced plans to reduce, in real terms, over the next three-year period at 2 per cent per annum, the cost of attributable departmental operations and a committee of inquiry has been appointed to examine and report on costs attributed to the industry. Therefore, in answer to the honourable member, I say that there has been in a very short space of time considerable progress in very important areas of the aviation industry. I thank the honourable member for his excellent and timely question. Mr STEELE HALL —Has the Prime Minister expressed complete confidence in the Attorney-General's handling of the New South Wales corruption issue without himself listening to the tapes? If he has not listened to them, how can he satisfy the Parliament in the exercise of its responsibility under section 72(ii ) of the Constitution, if at the same time Parliament itself is to be denied access to them? Mr HAWKE —I have not listened to the tapes but, as distinct from the situation on the other side of the House, I have complete confidence in the ability of all my ministerial colleagues, including the Attorney-General. On this side of the House we have confidence in one another, as distinct from the position on the other side, where we rightly understand that very few members trust one another. That is the situation, very properly, and for understandable reasons. Ms MAYER —Did the Prime Minister last week meet with representatives of the Australian Medical Association to discuss the refusal of some diagnostic specialists to charge at or below the schedule fee when treating private patients in public hospitals? Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the outcome of these talks and indicate what action, if any, the Government contemplates in bringing this dispute to resolution? Mr HAWKE —I can confirm that, following discussions with, and in complete agreement with, the Minister for Health, he and I had discussions last Friday with the President and General Secretary of the AMA. The AMA wished to discuss with the Government the present dispute, which has arisen out of the Government' s attempt to ensure that diagnostic specialists, radiologists and pathologists, charge at or below the schedule fee when they treat their private patients in public hospitals. At that meeting, with the Minister for Health, I went to great lengths to explain to the AMA that the Federal Government had already made a number of significant concessions to concerns which had been expressed to the Minister by that organisation. I reminded the AMA that the Government had established the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. I also pointed out, as the AMA knew, that the Committee had been charged with reporting to the Government on the ways in which a sensible balance could be struck between ensuring the continuation of private practice in public hospitals and the need for the Government to ensure that the public hospital system gives the best value health care to the public. The President and General Secretary of the AMA raised with me at that meeting their concern about section 17 which gave, as they put it, so-called unfettered powers to the Minister to alter the conditions of their contracts unilaterally. I told the AMA that the Government was prepared to give an undertaking in writing that there would be no change of any sort in the scope, the nature or the intent of the guidelines gazetted on 29 February this year until after the Penington Committee had reported. That was the first and a very substantial undertaking. We were prepared to give it in writing. We wanted to direct ourselves immediately to the concern that the AMA had expressed. Secondly, to allay the fears which the AMA expressed to me on these unfettered powers, I undertook that the Government would advise the Penington Committee that the Government would have no objection to recommendations coming from the Penington Committee on appropriate review procedures and that, further, the Government would undertake in advance to accept whatever recommendations the Committee made on that matter of review powers in respect of the Minister's decision. Any reasonable person will obviously concede that those were substantial and major concessions directly going to the specific points of concern raised by the AMA. What we sought in return from the AMA was its agreement to recommend to diagnostic specialists that where no agreements in writing presently existed those diagnostic specialists would sign agreements in accordance with the current guidelines to charge at or below the scheduled fee when they treated their private patients in taxpayer funded public hospitals. We also sought the AMA's recommendation to members that there be no discrimination against Medicare only patients in public hospitals. This process of negotiation, which has been assiduously and excellently undertaken by the Minister for Health, simply cannot be all one way. The Government has been prepared to demonstrate very considerable flexibility in the interests of securing agreement. As I said to the AMA, it takes two to tango in this sort of area. The Government and the community at large could quite legitimately have expected a less uncompromising and rigid stand from the doctors if only out of recognition of patients' interests. There are, however, as we pointed out, limits to the Government's flexibility on this matter. We sat with them; we talked with them. I asked them: 'What are your concerns?' They put their two concerns up and I directly met them. I asked: 'Is there anything more in respect of particular issues?' There was nothing more that they raised. As I say, there are limits as to how far we can go. We have a responsibility to secure important national interests, and one such interest is the containment of rising health costs. Hence our insistence that diagnostic specialists charge no more than the scheduled fee. I say, finally, that because of the AMA's actions, the governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia are now left with no option but to take the necessary steps in accordance with the Federal Government's guidelines to ensure compliance with the scheduled fee by diagnostic specialists. Mr MacKELLAR —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer the Minister to an article in the National Times dated 1 November 1983 entitled 'Big Shots Bugged'. Amongst other allegations is this one : The judge phones the solicitor and discusses a possible malicious prosecution, and then on 2 April 1980 the judge contacts the solicitor's wife and suggests that the solicitor gets a member of the New South Wales Labor Government to say he has made inquiries into the solicitor and that he has come up 'smelling like a rose'. I also refer to the Attorney-General's statement in another place on 28 February that one of the difficulties he faces is that: . . . the National Times, unlike the Age, is not prepared to reveal to the proper authorities the material which it has in its possession. Therefore, of course, this material has not been assessed by the Attorney- General or by Mr Temby. I therefore ask the Minister: What action does the Government intend to take to ensure that this material is subpoenaed so that these grave allegations concerning the judge can be properly dealt with? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think we should make it clear at the outset that any of the material that has been discussed in the National Times or the Age has not been authenticated. That is the first thing to say. Mr Hodgman —Why did the Attorney talk to the judge? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member has some authenticated evidence about it he should disclose it to the relevant task force. That is the point. We will not encourage trial by media or trial by the Opposition. The real issue here is: What is the evidence? The honourable member made the point that the National Times has information which he feels would be different. Mr MacKellar —I didn't say that. I said I didn't know. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, the honourable member did. He said: 'Why do we not subpoena the information'. When we made inquiries of the National Times as to whether it would make that information available, we were told no, that it was the same information that was in the possession of the police. That is what was said. Mr MacKellar —It can be subpoenaed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I suppose it could be subpoenaed but why can the National Times not do something about it? It is the same information. I think it is the responsibility of any newspaper to make any evidence of a crime available. There is no doubt about that. No legal proceedings have been started. On what basis would we issue a subpoena when nobody has started any process. Perhaps we could get the police to go again to the National Times and ask whether it would make the information available. Perhaps we could do that. On another occasion, honourable members will note, when the National Times published a lot of matter that related to national security, it said that all the information had been destroyed. It is not beyond the National Times or any other newspaper to say it has not got the information. If it has the information, I invite the newspaper to make it available to the joint task force. We have heard nothing but a series of innuendoes being made in the Senate and here that the Opposition has some information. In fact, it has been leaked out that it has information, but we are yet to get it. All we heard last week was that the Leader of the Opposition was about to give us some information. It still has not appeared. I know what the Opposition knows and it knows damn well that it has not got any information that in any way justifies any charges being made against anybody. It is for that reason that it is using the forms of this Parliament to try to smear people when it has not got any evidence. It comes very much to what was said in another place that the Opposition either puts up or shuts up. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Is it true that, as a result of the Olympic Telethon held in February, the Australian Olympic Federation raised between $5m and $6m for the 1984 Olympic team? In view of the fact that the budget for the team to attend the Olympic Games is $4.3m, has the AOF indicated to the Government or to the public who donated so generously how that surplus will be spent? If so, will any of it be directed towards those many athletes now in training and preparing who have or will experience financial difficulties in the course of representing Australia in Los Angeles? Mr JOHN BROWN —The facts as outlined by the honourable member for Perth who, I might add, is also the captain of Australia's world champion hockey team which will probably win a gold medal in Los Angeles-that probably gives him a vested interest in the question-are correct. The public responded very generously to the calls by the Australian Olympic Federation to fund our team to Los Angeles. I hope that the scenario outlined by the honourable member is the view that the Olympic Federation will take, that the excess funds should be used to provide some sort of relief for athletes who spend an extraordinary amount, not only of their blood, sweat and tears, but also of their resources in reaching the high standards that Australian athletes have reached in so many sports. I make the point that this Government is not about to tell the AOF what to do. We take the very serious and very responsible view that sporting bodies in Australia are autonomous although they are generously funded by this Government. We do not think it is our place at all to instruct them what to do or to put a political view across to them. We gave $1.4m to the Olympic fund, as I mentioned yesterday , which is a vast improvement-- Mr Fisher —Who gave? Mr JOHN BROWN —The Australian taxpayers gave the money by virtue of this Government's belief in sport. The same Australian taxpayers contributed the same tax to the former Government and what did it do? It gave athletes $800,000 to attend the Moscow Olympics and it took $500,000 back because those athletes would not toe the previous Government's political line. Since then that Government has paid $4m to commercial firms for that boycott of Moscow, to its disgrace, plus bribes to athletes to withdraw. So members of the Opposition should not tell us about the funding of sport. We take the responsible view that the Australian Olympic Committee will make its own decision. I hope it puts those excess funds to the use of athletes and to the promotion of further high level sport within Australia, and not merely grab it as an investment and tuck it away. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer the honourable gentleman to the claim of legal professional privilege apparently made to the Attorney-General by the Federal judge under comment in recent weeks in this place and in another place in relation to the Age tapes. Can he tell the House whether the Attorney-General was satisfied that the judge in question had not participated in any decisions involving the doctrine of legal professional privilege in circumstances where the judge himself would have been aware of the existence of the Age tapes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —My information, having had discussions with the Attorney-General , is that we can confirm just what the honourable gentleman says. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. Can he inform the House on the explosion in Sydney this morning which destroyed the house of a Family Court judge? Mr YOUNG —I am advised by the New South Wales Commissioner of Police that in the early hours of this morning the house of Mr Justice Richard Walter Gee, at Belrose, was almost totally destroyed by an explosion seated in the vicinity of the front of the premises. At the time, Judge Gee was asleep in the front bedroom of the house. His 12-year-old daughter, who was slightly injured, was asleep in an adjoining bedroom. A son, also asleep in the house, was not injured . The judge, his daughter and a neighbour's daughter were all admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital suffering from lacerations and shock. The judge suffered a lacerated left leg, right eye and face. Seven neighbouring houses were damaged to varying extents. The force of the blast was extensive and the exact seat of the explosion has not yet been identified. The New South Wales police scientific section is working at the scene and police inquiries have commenced. The Australian Federal Police has appointed a liaison officer and has indicated that all possible assistance will be provided to the State police in their inquiries. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that all honourable members will join with me in condemning this outrageous behaviour. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —Before asking my question of the Prime Minister, I point out that all members on this side of the House join with the Special Minister of State in expressing concern and sympathy. This matter having been raised, I am forced to draw to the Prime Minister's attention a statement made by his Attorney-General today in relation to this affair, which is nothing short of despicable. The quotation of the Attorney-General on station 2GB, as conveyed to me, is: One can't help but think there might be some kind of connection with the kind of attacks made verbally in recent days on the judiciary. This could give aid and encouragement to those inclined to attack them in other ways. That is an absolutely tasteless piece of political expediency. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to his question. I allowed the preliminary remarks but he should come to his question. The honourable gentlemen on my right are not helping by preventing me from asking him to do so. Mr PEACOCK —As we quite properly associate ourselves with the tenor of the remarks of the Special Minister of State, I ask the Prime Minister to dissociate himself and his Government from the comments of the Attorney-General. Mr HAWKE —After yesterday I have to have some doubts about the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition to report accurately on what the Attorney-General says, because he misrepresented the Attorney-General in this place yesterday. I trust he is not doing so again. If on this occasion, as distinct from yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition is speaking accurately, the views expressed by the Attorney-General to which he refers are those of the Attorney-General alone. There has been no consultation with the Government in a sense that would enable those comments to be represented as the view of the Government. Mr MILTON —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted allegations of Iraqi use of chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq conflict? Is there any evidence to substantiate these claims? Does Australia propose any initiatives in respect of these very serious allegations? Mr HAYDEN —Australian experts have had an opportunity to examine the Iranian claims and supporting documentation. The conclusion is that there is a substantial basis in fact to the allegations. Honourable members may be interested to know that on Friday 15 wounded Iranian soldiers were flown into Vienna for medical treatment of a specialist kind. They were discovered to be suffering severe pain and severe injuries to the face, mouth and nose. Superficially the injuries appeared to be consistent with severe burning. However, on examination it was established that burning did not cause the injuries, that they were, in fact, consistent with exposure to some sort of chemical substance. The conclusion seems to be that mustard gas has been used in the course of this conflict. This is a very disturbing development. It adds a new dimension to the nature of that conflict and adds, in a very worrying way, to instability in the region. If Iraq were to increase the production of this form of chemical substance for warfare purposes and were it to supply it to other countries in the region, one could readily apprehend the sort of tension that would contribute and one could also anticipate the likelihood of a pre-emptive strike being adopted by some country feeling somewhat exposed and in danger as a result of those developments . The Government believes there is a need for a continued effort on the part of the international community to ensure that all reports of chemical warfare are promptly and thoroughly investigated. The Government supports the 1982 and 1983 United Nations General Assembly resolutions to this effect and has nominated the Materials Research Laboratories of the Department of Defence for inclusion in the list compiled by the Secretary-General to assist him in the investigation of such reports. The 1982 General Assembly also adopted a resolution, which Australia co-sponsored, calling for the strict observance by all states of the principles and objectives of the 1925 Geneva protocol which prohibits the use in war of chemical and bacteriological methods of warfare. Accordingly, today I will be instructing our Ambassador in Baghdad to take up the matter with the Iraqi authorities. I will also be instructing our Ambassador in New York to discuss the matter with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to urge the Secretary-General to take action, pursuant to the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, to investigate the reports. The Australian Government believes the situation calls for a full, impartial and independent investigation by the United Nations, and to that end will support whatever proper initiatives may be initiated at the United Nations and elsewhere . The Australian Government opposes the manufacturing and stockpiling of chemical warfare agents and seeks a global prohibition against either manufacture or stockpiling of such agents. We intend to work unremittingly towards that end. Mrs KELLY —Mr Speaker, I have a question in relation to the operation of the Parliamentary Library. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will place her question in writing and hand it to the Clerk. The information will be obtained and recorded in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party of Australia has sought indulgence to ask a brief question of me. I grant him that indulgence. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I wonder if you will make a statement to the House about the present procedure for the printing of Hansard. I understand there are some industrial problems affecting it. Mr SPEAKER —I will respond to that by saying there are some industrial problems at the Government Printing Office. They do not affect our Parliamentary Reporting Staff but I think it would be best if I prepared a statement on the present progress in that area and delivered it to the House later this day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on guidelines for the operation of national research facilities. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I table a two-page instrument setting out particulars of a direction given by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) under sub-section 42(2) of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 33(3) of the Australian National University Act 1946 I present the Australian National University 1982 report, part 2. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the Industries Assistance Commission report on the dried vine fruits industry-short term assistance during the 1984 season. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present the fifth and sixth reports on the operation of the Special Employment Related Programs Act 1982. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the review of the repatriation hospital system. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Aboriginal Hostels Ltd annual report for 1982-83. The report was released to honourable members during the recess. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) has sought my indulgence to correct a matter of fact in a statement. I grant him that indulgence. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —Mr Speaker, yesterday in speaking to the matter of public importance I referred to the prosecution of a Mr Sala in what is known as the Sala case. I attributed the location of that offence and prosecution to Victoria. I did so because I had in my file a report of the case in a Victorian paper. I seek leave of the House, and your permission, Mr Speaker, to correct an error. The location is Sydney and not Melbourne. Mr SPEAKER —The statement corrects that. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with a personal explanation. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Speaker, yesterday and today, I think probably inadvertently, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) made two statements about contributions to the Australian Olympic Fund. On both occasions he indicated that the Australian Labor Party had contributed $1.4m to the Olympic Fund. That is not true. In 1982 in our Budget we allocated half a million dollars and we also allocated-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs knows what personal explanations are about, and that is not a personal explanation. Mr McVEIGH —As I was the Minister, it was a reflection on me. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —I do not have, because of the difficulties, the printed proof version of Hansard before me. But I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I do have my notes that I scribbled down whilst sitting here in Parliament yesterday when I asked some questions of the Prime Minister. Those notes indicate to me, that in asking a question of the Prime Minister, to which he referred today, I said: Is he aware that in the Senate the Attorney-General has confirmed that matters of judicial misbehaviour are a matter for Parliament to determine? The Prime Minister alleges that the Attorney-General did not say that. I have here the pinks from the Senate yesterday from which I will quote the Attorney- General, who said: I readily agree that the determination of whether something is a matter of misbehaviour in relation to section 72 of the Constitution is something for Parliament and not the courts to decide. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cross,Mr Gear,Mr Hawker,Mr Rocher and Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free,Mr Hollis and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Charles and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to ALL non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint programmes for improvements in Government schools in the next decade. 1. We ask that the Federal Government increase recurrent funding for Government schools as promised. 2. We ask that the Federal Government provide promised funding for special programmes to assist primary children with learning difficulties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys and Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We as members of a School Parent Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parent Clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain electors of Australia, Division of Dawson, shows: That Australia is basically a Christian nation-as shown by figures from the last census. That the Queen of Australia is recognised as head of Australia's Parliamentary System. That no mandate has been sought from or given by the Australian people to alter our Oath of Allegiance, the proposal to amend the Citizenship Act not being publicised prior to the last Federal election. That removal of references to God and the Queen is the first small significant step towards Republicanism. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government does not remove references to God and the Queen from our Oath of Allegiance and that it be allowed to remain unchanged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia members of the Australian Federal Police shows: We are greatly concerned at the Government's proposed removal of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police and the Government's proposed establishment of a Guarding Service using the effected members of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police. We are concerned that national security currently being enjoyed by various Federal Government departments, some subject to the Defence Alliance Agreement, are not jeopardised by the disbandonment of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police by being placed into the hands of a proposed civilian and undisciplined organisation. We are concerned at the huge expenditure of the taxpayers' money that would be involved by the creation of a new administrative organisation when we currently have satisfactory administration of all Australian Federal Police activities under one management and secondly in considering the taxpayers' money unnecessarily expended in logistical areas, e.g. the creation of an entirely new nationwide radio network, purchasing of stores, uniforms and ancillary equipment , motor vehicles and suitable premises to house the administrative body of the proposed guarding service and many other items too numerous to mention. We are concerned that this could be the first step in the complete fragmentation of the Australian Federal Police considering your mandates determination to implement self-government for the Australian Capital Territory and moves afoot to establish an independent Australian Capital Territory law enforcement agency. We are concerned that the interest of all members of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police and their families could be jeopardised by such a move and that members may well be discriminated against or disadvantaged as has happened following the amalgamation of the former Commonwealth Police and Australian Capital Territory Police. We request that to protect the interests of the members of the Protective Service Component as opposed to forming a new guarding service that the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 be amended by the deletion of Section 6 (d), 7 (2) and 10 from the Act. We request the retention of a Protective Service Branch of the Australian Federal Police for training members desirous of obtaining a transfer to the General Policing Component of the Australian Federal Police and as an auxillary, trained and disciplined force of men capable of being used to meet emergency situations such as Cyclone Tracy, security for royal visits and visiting VIPs ( CHOGM Conference) and the like and for the 1985 World Athletics Games to be held in the Australian Capital Territory. We request that a complete review of all functions of the Australian Federal Police be carried out to establish the areas of responsibility of the operational units of the Australian Federal Police and the most effective means of obtaining these objectives. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House stop the proposed formation of a new guarding service, that national security at various Government departments be retained, that the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 be amended by the deletions of Sections 6 (d), 7 (2) and 10, that taxpayers money is not squandered and that a complete review be carried out of all functions of the Australian Federal Police to establish the most effective means of achieving its objectives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion, currently exists in Australia on particular grounds including, interalia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and of sexual preference; and the discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is currently exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under Federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that legislation be enacted to permit the biological control of the weed known as ''patersons curse''. The petitioners wish to express their most serious concern regarding the recent spread of this weed and the resultant loss in primary production. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. The petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. The petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Hume respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. The petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by: (1) The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district. (2) The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service. (3) The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State. (4) The loss of a local and personalized service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that those of the Honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Hounourable House will: 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of Uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in goverment schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. The honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Represenatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mr Hunt. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Windsor parishioners and electors of the Division of Brisbane show-great concern on behalf of the (Proposed) Wooloowin Albion and Windsor District Co-operative Ltd., that a Commonwealth Government Scheme has not been forthcoming to allow projects such as this to become effectively involved in Community Housing. Your petitioners therefore pray that a Community Housing scheme be implemented in accordance with the Government's pre-election promise. We urge that this scheme be implemented as quickly as possible so that the Housing needs of the members of the (Proposed) Wooloowin Albion and Windsor District Co-operative Ltd ., can be alleviated by assisting them to purchase surplus dwellings from the Queensland Department of Main Roads. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983/84 over 1982/83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983/84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of Residents of Mirboo North and adjoining districts in the State of Victoria, respectfully showeth that following the introduction of Medicare in February of 1984, and in the light of the McClelland Report, all Victorian Private Bush Nursing Hospitals will be detrimentally affected. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government recognise and support the vital role played by Victorian Bush Nursing Hospitals in the Health Care of rural communities and in particular that the Government ensures that the impact of Medicare is not such, as to cause the decline and loss of the basic general medical services that these hospitals provide, and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely: The failure of the Government to properly respond to the deep community concern over the New South Wales corruption tapes. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —Mr Speaker, I am not surprised that of the two matters before you, you determined that the matter of highest priority was the discussion of the matter of public importance that the Opposition, through me, has put forward, namely: The failure of the Government to properly respond to the deep community concern over the New South Wales corruption tapes. The background to this matter goes back months. In October of last year the Opposition called for action on illegal telephone tapping and indicated that the Hawke Government should urge the New South Wales Government to establish an inquiry or itself have a royal commission. The Hawke Government did nothing. In November the National Times produced an article which was referred to in Question Time today by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). The National Times published an article indicating that there was a large network, allegedly, of organised crime involving judges, solicitors, State politicians, and the Federal and State police. In late November and early December our colleagues in the Senate asked the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to have the Government investigate the allegations. The Attorney-General promised to check with the then Special Minister of State. Nearly four months later nothing had been done. The answer given in this House today was that the Government might ask the newspapers yet again. There has been no follow-up whatsoever on the most serious allegations. Mr Hunt —It is a cover-up. Mr PEACOCK —There was no follow-up on the first allegation in October. There was a cover-up. The honourable member is right. There was nothing on the second. It was a cover-up. One is moved to ask why there is this refusal to confront organised crime. While all this has been going on the Government has also been vaccilating over the National Crimes Authority. It does not like commissions. There are too many people taking commissions in this place, it would appear. The Government calls it the National Crimes Authority. It has accepted our move to have that proposed authority examined, but the National Crimes Commission of the Fraser Government, one with real teeth to attack organised crime, could have been in operation nearly 12 months ago. Instead, we have nothing and there is nothing in its place. That brings me to the more current element, the publication by the Melbourne Age on 2 February of an article about the tapes which are now well known and discussed in this Parliament. What has been the response of the Hawke Government and of the Wran Government? The Hawke Government's response to this Parliament has been to shuffle them off for various forms of advice-virtually nothing. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition has given the Government every opportunity to move expeditiously and effectively on this matter. Question after question has not been answered. There was even the opportunity in the Senate as late as yesterday to move for a sanitised version of the tapes and transcripts to be given to members and senators so that they can determine, as is their constitutional responsibility, whether there has been any misconduct. But even that move was put down. It appears that the Prime Minister even moves away from determining whether the Parliament has the authority to determine questions of judicial misbehaviour. Section 72(ii) of the Constitution, to which I referred both yesterday and today, provides that the Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament: Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. There is no doubt in the mind and in the statement of the Attorney-General that Parliament has that authority. There is no doubt, judging from what was put on the program AM this morning, that a distinguished academic, Professor Lane of Sydney University, shares the same view as most commentators on areas of constitutional law. On that program today he was asked the question: If evidence of allegations of misbehaviour is presented to the Attorney-General , is he required to present that evidence to the Parliament, or can he or one of his officers make a decision on those allegations? Professor Lane's answer was: I can only say as I read Section 72 that it puts the whole removal exercise in the hands of the Parliament itself. The Attorney-General in fact is confirming that Parliament has that authority, but he refuses to give the Parliament the material that is required. He is ensuring that the Parliament cannot exercise its proper responsibility. He is denying to Parliament the means of exercising its responsibility. I have read from the Constitution and from an extract of a transcript from AM. The Minister said words to this effect: 'I have the material but I am not going to make it available'. I have indicated to honourable members that despite what the Prime Minister said at Question Time, the Attorney-General did confirm that the power on this issue rests with the Parliament. It is the Attorney-General who, with the Government, has been covering up on this issue. There was a great Labour Attorney-General in Great Britain named Lord Shawcross. He is quoted at page 298 of a book written by Edwards, which is entitled The Law Officers of the Crown. Lord Shawcross refers to the responsibility of an Attorney-General in relation, for example, to a judicial inquiry involving perhaps some of his Labour colleagues. The question arises: Is an Attorney-General first and foremost the first law officer of the Crown and the country or is he another politician protecting his mates? I will read to honourable members what Lord Shawcross wrote on such an occasion when faced with that dilemma. He said: . . . it was of the utmost importance from the public point of view to maintain the position that it was the duty (however personally unpleasant) of His Majesty 's Attorney-General to represent the public interest with complete objectivity and detachment, and that to refuse to discharge that duty in a particular case in which the public interest might be suspected to conflict with the interests of certain of his friends or of his political colleagues would be tantamount to saying that the office itself was inadequate to represent and protect the public interest against whosoever might challenge it. It was in many ways a very distasteful decision to have to make, but I hope it helped to consolidate the Attorney-General's right and duty-and that is what I emphasise in these matters- the duty-to be wholly detached, wholly independent and to accept the implications of an obligation to protect what he conceives to be the public interest whatever the political results may be. There is a question of public interest and public duty. The Prime Minister said today that no transcripts could be tabled in this Parliament because it would be a grave breach of privacy. We have reached the point at which the Prime Minister is determined that the privacy of conversations between alleged criminals override the public duty of the Government to ensure that corruption is eradicated. There is not one honourable member on this side of the House who does not believe strongly in privacy for individuals in this nation and that the right of privacy should not lightly be put to one side. But when there is a conflict between public duty and public good, and the privacy which is alleged to be held dear is allowed to override that public duty, it is the duty of every honourable member of this Parliament to say to the Government: 'It is your duty to execute on behalf of the public the rights given to this Parliament by the Constitution and defined in the duties of an Attorney-General'. It is said that we are raising political issues because of the New South Wales election. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) correctly commenced his speech yesterday by reminding this Parliament that the Premier of New South Wales had said there would not be an election in the first six months of this year. This Opposition did not call the election; Mr Greiner did not call the election. The Premier of New South Wales called the election. He called it on the singular basis, namely, to clear up charges which had been made and, gratuitously, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) also said today, to give the Opposition a chance to put up or shut up. We do not have to put up. If honourable members opposite want us to put up, I say that we have been doing that for a lengthy period both here and in New South Wales, whether it be in regard to Allen, to Jackson, or to what flowed from allegations against Mr Wran and Mr Farquhar. As honourable members know it is all there; and more. Some allegations have been referred for investigation to the Solicitor-General in New South Wales. Some have been referred to a special prosecutor. Some have been referred to a Director of Public Prosecutions- designate. Some have been referred to Mr Justice Stewart. At root, this Parliament is the real determinant of one element and if the Government is prepared to sweep that aside the Opposition has no option now but to move to the point of saying: 'We have reached the stage in this whole seamy affair where no other course of action is open; if you are not to allow Parliament to determine the question of judicial misbehaviour all of the elements that have been spread to various, and indeed in some cases nefarious, quarters ought to be drawn together and examined by a royal commission'. That is at this stage the only proper option left and it is not only the Opposition that is calling for it. We do not lightly call for these royal commissions. We have been reading in the Age, in the Sydney Morning Herald and in other editorial opinion that the reality is that only a royal commission with power to subpoena witnesses and compel questions to be answered in order to obtain the truth will in fact ascertain the truth. We hear in the House that there may be no authentication of the tapes. The Government has had weeks- indeed almost months in some instances-so far as the Age tapes are concerned, to have them authenticated. The Age claims that it has authenticated them by various means. It is within the power of this Government to determine whether the tapes are authentic or not and it is in the power of this Government, if it establishes a royal commission or judicial inquiry, to subpoena the material that the honourable member for Mackellar was bringing forth today. All that the Deputy Prime Minister will say is that he will approach the newspaper yet again. If there is no parliamentary inquiry into one element of this matter there must be a royal commission both to check the National Times allegations and to compel witnesses by subpoena to tell the truth-to compel, therefore, this Parliament to face what is authenticated material and the truth. There has been a cover-up at every instance along this path. If we draw everything together, all that has been referred elsewhere, and send it to a royal commission the truth will out. However, the Prime Minister stands in this Parliament and expresses complete confidence in the Attorney-General. He last year expressed confidence in another Minister who had not given him the full details of a matter but who later had to resign. Today he tells us that he has not checked all of the details involved; he has not listened to the tapes. He has listened to the Attorney-General telling him what he thinks of the tapes. Is that sufficient inquiry, given the precedent, given what transpired before? It is not sufficient for this Opposition. Indeed, the Prime Minister expresses total support for the Premier of New South Wales. Mr Howard —The penciller. Mr PEACOCK —Has he quizzed the penciller? Has he quizzed the Premier? Has he asked him about details that go to the heart of these tapes? How can he establish that confidence of which he talks in the Premier of New South Wales if he has not gone into these details? The reality is that we are faced today with saying to the Government: 'We have questioned and questioned you; we have moved amendments in the Senate asking that sanitised versions to protect the innocent be given to members so they can determine whether a case ought to be stated under section 72(ii), and you reject all those'. We now say to it: 'If you are fair dinkum in your search for the truth, if you really want to get at the heart of the matter, if you want to compel witnesses, if you want to ascertain the real situation, there is but one course of action to follow and that is to establish a royal commission or a judicial inquiry. Otherwise, you are not governing, you are not even inquiring effectively. More to the point, you are using both the forms of this Parliament and the answers that you give at question time to cover up the real situation'. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that he knew what I had. I do not know how he knew, but he said he knew. Perhaps he has been listening to me and could make those tapes available as well . Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.25) —This is the second day in succession that members of the Opposition have made some effort to suggest that there is information available that they know about. They feel that the Government should be doing something about it. Mr MacKellar —That is right. The Government should. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member who interjected raised the same issue today, which was quite surprising. He said the information in the Melbourne Age was different to that in the National Times. Mr MacKellar —I did not say that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, he did. The honourable member made that assertion. Let me make it very clear: If there is any evidence of misbehaviour or illegal conduct please let members of the Opposition produce it because they have done nothing but ask a series of questions. They have not even moved a substantive motion on this matter. In fact, in the first week of this sitting we had the benefit of discussing the merits of the Opposition's denigration of Mr Justice Cross. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) gave an outrageous exhibition on the basis that he felt there had been a miscarriage of justice. All he did was to try to deny the fact that he had given a number of versions of what he felt was his right to use this Parliament to denigrate a member of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The point is that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been quite assiduous in his duties. Any information given to him he has given to the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby, the Special Prosecutor. Further, the opinions of the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby were also given to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I wish honourable members opposite would address their minds to the very lengthy statement that the Attorney-General made on this matter in the Parliament on 28 February. There was not one reference to it today by the Leader of the Opposition. The Attorney-General's statement deals with every aspect that the Leader of the Opposition has endeavoured to raise today. One segment of the 26 page statement deals with authenticity and evidentiary status. The Attorney-General says this: I cannot emphasise too strongly the dubious status of the material in question. The tapes and transcripts given to me are clearly not originals. The locations of the original tapes and transcripts are not known to the Government. Who took the copies from which the Age copies were derived is unknown to us. The material is therefore completely anonymous and completely unauthenticated. This is not some technical point designed to divert attention from issues of substance, as some media comments have perhaps suggested. We simply have no means, and are unlikely in the future to have any means, of being sure that we have a full, untampered with, reliable account of the conversations that appear to have been intercepted. It is not even a matter of being able to check the content of the Age-supplied transcripts against that of the Age-supplied tapes, since the two categories of material are mutually exclusive: None of the material on the tapes is in the transcripts, and none of the material in the transcripts can be checked against anything on the tapes. Mr Steele Hall —When did he say that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He said it in Parliament on 28 February and do not tell me that the honourable member does not know about that. It happens to be a published statement. Let me come to the law in respect of this matter. For the benefit of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), Mr Temby identified the whole list of documents that he has. There are many bundles of documents which run into an enormous number of pages. He gave a legal interpretation in respect of misbehaviour pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution. Mr Temby, in his opinion, said: There is nothing in the material I have seen, assuming its authenticity, which would prove or in any way support the conclusion that (the Judge) has been guilty of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72(ii) of the Constitution. It is all a matter of record. An independent member of the Bar, Mr Temby, who has been appointed Special Prosecutor and who operates at arm's length says that there is nothing in this at all. A bit further on in his opinion-and this would be of benefit, of course, to honourable gentlemen opposite-he said: 'Look, it is a matter of record that the question of misbehaviour certainly has been identified by Quick and Garran'. He quoted a passage from Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, second edition, page 857. That passage states: Misbehaviour includes, firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance; and, thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise. The Attorney-General said: The opinion I have now received from the Solicitor-General, and which I now table, has substantially confirmed the test that Mr Temby applied. What do we have here today? Just because Laurie Oakes or somebody else said last week that the Opposition was ineffective and had not done anything about this matter, we have had a series of events on two consecutive days; the Leader of the Opposition feels that he wants something done about the matter. Honourable members should bear in mind that the New South Wales Opposition has been saying for some time that there is something wrong in New South Wales and that it has evidence of it. It has never produced evidence of it. The former Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mr Dowd, used to spend all his time on the adjournment naming people right across the country for being villains, charlatans, crooks and rogues. He named them from the cowardly position of the privilege of Parliament. Justice was done to him. He was removed from the leadership of the Opposition. That is what should have happened to him. How many people did he slander and slur from the cowardly position of the privilege of Parliament because he was the Leader of the Opposition? The point at issue here is that if there is some evidence, and the Opposition feels there is, the newspapers that have the evidence and the police who have the evidence should do something about it. Mr Howard —Wran is a disgrace and you know it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not want to hear too many objections from this honourable member from New South Wales. The honourable member should go back a little bit to his Government's performance in the Volkman case. He should have a look at the prosecution of Volkman. He gave evidence to the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. What happened to Volkman? Mr Newman —You are wrong. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not wrong. I will tell you how wrong I am. No wonder the honourable member has a guilty conscience; he interferred in the matter. Volkman gave evidence in camera and was then hounded by the same police who were involved in the royal commission. The honourable member was in charge of the police at the time. Mr Newman —What are you saying? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am making the point that the honourable member should have been able to give some justice to Volkman. This is the standard of conduct of the former Government while in office. Volkman's house was then raided. I want to give honourable members opposite some idea of justice. His house was raided on a warrant issued by the former Attorney-General. The transcript of evidence given in camera was seized. The former Government then prosecuted Volkman on the basis that he was guilty of some smuggling charge. He was released after the committal proceedings. The magistrate said that there was no evidence to justify his committal. Nine months later the former Attorney-General filed an ex officio indictment. In the middle of Volkman's trial a Minister of the former Government accused him here of being guilty. That happened in the middle of the trial. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) was the Minister. In the middle of a debate in this House, he accused Volkman who was defending himself in a Court of Quarter Sessions-- Mr Groom —What are you going to do about it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am coming to the question of the former Government's sense of justice. I feel for the likes of Volkman who have to face that sort of harangue. What happened then? That trial had to be discontinued. Volkman had to pay all his costs. The former Government then charged him again. He was acquitted after the second trial. Honourable members should go back to the former Attorney- General, Senator Durack, and others and inquire about the persecution of this man by a parliament. What about the famous Sankey case? Who paid Mr Sankey's costs? Mr Sankey's costs totalling $80,000 were paid by a little old lady who used the ANZ Bank at Burwood. Which honourable member sitting opposite financed that transaction? The Opposition has come in here as a team of charlatans and frauds. It has misused the House. That is all honourable members opposite have ever done. Mr Ruddock —Bob Ellicott could teach you a few things about standards. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Bob Ellicott could teach you a few things. I will say that. Mr Ruddock —Yes, he could teach you about standards. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am sure he could. I am glad the honourable member mentioned it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. Interjections from on my left are going beyond the limits of tolerance. I suggest that they cease or I will be forced to take action. Mr Peacock —Are you on the tapes? Are you mentioned? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will bet that the Leader of the Opposition and Matheson are on the tapes. I will bet that for sure. Why did the honourable member not come clean in his interview with Matheson on 18 January about Mr Soudarikov? The honourable member told Malcolm Fraser about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was talking about rules and so on. I remind him that the Standing Orders apply equally to him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Over a period of years the Opposition, when devoid of any facts of any economic interest that concerns the nation or of any facts about unemployment, gets down into the gutter and raises matters involving people. It trumped up four charges in the Sankey case, as honourable members know. It took years for those people to be acquitted. As a matter of fact they were given legal aid. Mr Ellicott might like to correct me on that. They were given legal aid, but Mr Ellicott did not tell them they would be given legal aid until four months later. How about that? Would honourable members like to check that? The former Attorney-General knew the accused would be given legal aid but was not prepared to tell them until four months later. I come now to the Sankey case. How is it that the same counsel, Mr Rofe, also prosecuted all the Greeks in the Greek conspiracy case? Was that just an accident? How much money was paid? Legal fees in the Greek conspiracy case amounted to $10m and the former Government did not convict one accused. What sort of people are members of the Opposition when it comes to the question of propriety? These are the same issues. The issues that are wrong today were obviously wrong in 1979 or 1980. The Liberal-National Party was in power at that time. Mr Peacock —But it has been disclosed now. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has now all been brought out. It is a fake tape if there is a tape at all. Mr Peacock —Are you saying that the editor of the Age is lying? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why can he not produce the people? Mr Peacock —Do you say that the editor of the Age is lying? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The editor of the Age has said that he has a copy of the National Times. We are going around in circles. We are saying what the Opposition is saying. It says it has the evidence. It says it knows there is something wrong. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), in his famous speech said there was something dreadfully wrong with justice in New South Wales. He said: 'I confirm what Mr Bob Bottom said. The same thing happened to me. I was asked to give a large sum of money on the basis that I would not be prosecuted'. Why did he not give that evidence? Mr Sinclair —I did. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member did not. I invite him now to go back to Mr Justice Cross and say that he has the evidence. He should tell him that he had a lapse of memory before and when the police interviewed him he said they had done nothing illegal. Mr Sinclair —You have a good look at the evidence. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am having a good look at the right honourable member. All I want to do is to have a look at the right honourable member's diary and at the cattle prices to see whether they were sold on the same day as the date mentioned in the diary. I will bet there is a big gap. What about the cheque? Perhaps the right honourable member might like to show us where he deposited the cheque for the cattle and what date that was deposited. What about the 20Gs, in the vernacular of the race course? They are all inventions of the right honourable member. Let us make it very clear. A lot of aspersions have been cast on a number of innocent people. I am talking about the speech by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, I am talking about Bob Bottom's accusations and I am talking about accusations that the magistrate, Ms Schreiner, was not fit to hold that position. Honourable members opposite are all associated with that. They are associated with every bit of it. Mr Sinclair —Do you agree with Sully? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would not agree with everything he said, but when Mr Sully recommended that the right honourable member for New England be prosecuted, I agreed with him. He did that. We got an opinion from Mr Sully as to whether the right honourable member should face trial and he said he should. Mr Sully is not all bad. I think that the right honourable member should not go through the machinations of using this Parliament to attack the judiciary. He is not entitled to use this Parliament to attack the judiciary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SPEAKER —Order! In Question Time the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) asked about the publication of the daily Hansard being delayed over the last few sitting days due to industrial disputation at the Government Printing Office. This involved the imposition of a ban on overtime. I am now advised that the ban on overtime has today been lifted. However, due to the backlog of work there will continue to be some delay in the publication of the daily Hansard. I think that will satisfy the right honourable gentleman's query. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I direct the attention of members of the House to the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished former senator and Presiding Officer of the Senate, Justin O'Byrne. I am sure we all welcome him. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I grant the honourable member indulgence to correct any personal misrepresentation. I remind him that he should not debate the matter. Mr WILSON —I do not intend to debate the matter, Mr Speaker. During the speech that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made to the House he referred to the Volkman case and said that I was the Minister at the time. I was a Minister but at no time did I have any ministerial responsibility for the Volkman case. It never came within the responsibilities of either of the portfolios I held. Mr Lionel Bowen —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as I said the honourable member for Sturt made a speech, reported in Hansard, which said that Volkman was guilty of bird smuggling. It was within his responsibility. Because of the statement he made, the trial had to recommence. He apparently intervened in the case without knowing it. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Having started this, I suppose I should let it go. However, it would have been better to raise these matters at the end of the debate instead of in the middle when they interfere with the contributions of honourable members. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.43) —The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), by his vehement diversion today from anything but the tapes, has clearly indicated that the Government does not intend to co-operate with the Parliament to get to the bottom of any of the controversies which have arisen because of the publication of the transcripts of these tapes. The Deputy Prime Minister was badly mistaken in referring to his colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the way that he did, and in relying on the statement of the Attorney-General to cast doubts on the authenticity of the tapes. During his comments I queried him as to the date of the remarks to which he was referring and he said 28 February. The Attorney-General made further statements about this matter. In fact, he continues to speak quite loosely and freely about it. Significantly, on the following day, 29 February, he spoke specifically about the authenticity of the tapes. In his statement to the Senate he said: Certainly it is very difficult to contest in any root and branch way the authenticity of the 11 conversations that are the subject of specific content of the four tapes. He went on, in the same statement: . . . Even if one accepts, as I do, that it is more likely than not that those conversations occurred between the parties in question. That is a quite different complexion on what the Attorney-General's beliefs are in relation to authenticity from that which the Deputy Prime Minister would have had us believe by his diversion tactics today. The Attorney-General raises serious doubts about his own performance in this matter by some of his remarks in that statement. He spoke about the most serious matter of a judge who had, at the request of a lawyer, apparently intervened with an official of the New South Wales Government to get a particular person appointed to a particular position. We do not know whether the lawyer who got this appointment via the judge was paid, personally, for getting that appointment but we do know that he was successful. I would have thought that this was a very important part of the judge's discretion or indiscretion in this matter. One can think of no greater indiscretion than a member of the highest judiciary in the land reaching deeply down into the political Executive to do the bidding of a lawyer friend or colleague. There can be no greater indiscretion and no greater failure in the system than if the judiciary and the Executive come together so closely, as in this matter recorded on those tapes. One would have expected the Attorney- General, who apparently had, on his own word, conversations with the judge in the presence of an officer he took with him, to have made some specific notes about such a particularly outrageous position as that which the judge was in. What did he say? He said: 'As I recall'. We talk of authenticity of the tapes, but what about the authenticity of the Attorney-General's conversation with the judge? It is not 'Based on the following notes; or 'I state', but 'As I recall'. It was the Deputy Prime Minister during this matter of public importance and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during Question Time who put their whole fate, the whole standard of government, on the veracity and performance of the Attorney- General. As I have said, in relation to that stated indiscretion, the Attorney-General said 'As I recall the judge said this', so that the Attorney-General had to perform some fabulous feat of proximate recall and the judge responded, too, apparently also by performing some feat of proximate recall. Put the two together and we get a report to this Parliament which is utterly worthless as far as this Parliament's efforts to decide upon the position of the judge are concerned. So much for the diversionary tactics of the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to the catcalls from the Government about intervention in relation to the New South Wales election, a judicial inquiry or royal commission as called for by my leader, would lift an immediate load off the politics of New South Wales. It would take this matter out of the parliamentary arena here for the rest of this week and therefore through to the elections and it would, in all fairness in the application of the future work of the commission, take it out of the public domain during the election period. So I say to the Government: Rather than charge the Opposition with interfering in the New South Wales election by calling for a commission, it should realise that the setting up of a commission would do just the opposite in that it would take this contention out of the realm of the political arguments surrounding the election. I mentioned before that it is dangerous for the Government and the Prime Minister to rely on the defence of the Attorney-General because the Attorney- General is taking a very public position in relation to the revelations as they have been made public by the two newspapers. On the AM program this morning, in answer to the question 'What would you do next if the charges continue?', he said that he would simply move to the next stage of the defence. So the Attorney -General is assuming that everything that is put on the tapes is untrue. He is assuming this for his personal position in this argument yet, in his statement on 29 February to the Senate, he said that basically, in root and branch style, they are true. How does he put those two things together? If the conversations took place and the judge has answered for one of his positions, as though his particular intervention in the appointment of a government official was true, how can he say in response to further allegations that he will simply move to the defence? I put it to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that they will be in a very precarious position if they continue to rely on the word of the Attorney-General because the special investigator, Mr Temby, did not deal with a very significant part of the allegation-the allegation that the judge had left a message at the lawyer's home that he should arrange for a member of the New South Wales Parliament to make inquiries to have a member of that Parliament come up with a statement that the solicitor was smelling like a rose. That happens to be a fairly significant recommendation, because at that time the solicitor was under investigation for transgressions of the migration law for which he was subsequently convicted. One would think, therefore, that there was some significance in his getting the recommendation of a member of the New South Wales Parliament that he would come up smelling like a rose. It would have been very useful to a man who was under investigation for a crime for which he was subsequently convicted. Where did he get the advice? The transcripts say that he got it from a judge responsible to this Federal Parliament. If that is not a serious matter for this community to investigate nothing will ever be serious again. I put it to the Government that my Leader's call for an investigation into this matter is of the utmost urgency. I inform honourable members who are trying to interject that there is a rather circular path in all of these matters. Dealing again with the Sala case, I put this question to the Government: Was it that lawyer who appears on the tapes who asked the Attorney- General of the day to give Mr Sala his passport back? Was that the lawyer who asked the then Attorney-General to give the passport back? Mr Campbell —You have to be joking. Mr STEELE HALL —I know that honourable members opposite are very sensitive about this matter. There is a circular path and the Government should answer the question. If it will not it should get an independent judicial body to present to the public what the responsible media of Australia have presented to it. It is not the first time that responsible media in free nations around the world have brought injustices in the administration of their public affairs to public view and have been able to obtain satisfaction either through investigation or through the courts. I compliment the media organisations which have brought this matter forward. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.53) —This is the second volley that has been fired by Opposition members on two consecutive days in order to pursue their obvious determination to join their New South Wales colleagues in the gutters and the sewers. I am surprised that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) was selected today as the Opposition member to support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in view of the considerable discredit that he brought upon himself yesterday when the matter of public importance was being considered. The honourable member has compounded that situation today. The claim has been made in the wording of this matter of public importance that the Government has not properly responded to the deep community concern over the New South Wales corruption tapes. During my contribution I will make it abundantly clear that the Government acted not only impeccably but also with absolute propriety and with commendable expedition in connection with its attitude and the approach it has taken to these questions. Yesterday when the House considered the matter of public importance the honourable member for Boothby passed judgment of criminal activities in cases where no court proceedings had been conducted and in cases where no inquiries had been undertaken. Yet apparently the objective of the Opposition is that people within the community against whom no charges have been laid, against whom certain scurrilous accusations have been made on the basis of quite clearly unauthenticated tapes and transcripts, should be in some way brought into this chamber so that members of the Opposition can be given the opportunity to pass judgment on them. I ask my colleagues: How safe would any of us feel if we were the people who were brought before the inquisitors who sit opposite? There is no way in the world in which the Government would ever comply with such an implied request. Very fortunately, in Australia there are great and proud traditions in our legal system. There is a proud tradition that the due processes of law will be followed. There is a proud tradition that the presumption of innocence will apply until guilt is proved. The implied demand of the Opposition in connection with this case on two consecutive days has been that we in this national Parliament and this national Government should establish in some way a kangaroo court in order to malign and impugn the character and the integrity of people against whom no charges have been laid. Let me refer briefly to the person who was responsible in the first place-- Mr Ruddock —There is no other way. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dundas is not taking part in this debate. I ask him to stop interjecting. Mr ROBERT BROWN —This chook from Dundas has been sitting there cackling while I have been speaking on two consecutive days. I am quite happy to take him on on any occasion, but at least I would do so in a more appropriate forum. Let us examine very briefly the person who was responsible for spiriting, as he has indicated, unauthenticated tapes and transcripts from New South Wales down to the Age newspaper office in Victoria. The person was Mr Bob Bottom. He is an alleged crime investigator from New South Wales. Most of the material that Mr Bob Bottom has made available hitherto has been gleaned from daily newspapers. Then he concocts it all into some form of substantial claim. Not only that, but Mr Bottom has also made accusations against Susan Schreiner, a stipendary magistrate in New South Wales. Bob Bottom claimed that Susan Schreiner, against whom no accusation had ever been made in her life, was guilty of going to a dinner engagement with a criminal figure and, arising out of that dinner, beneficial legal treatment was given to Malcolm Johnson, a jockey, in connection with charges that he then faced. That case went to an inquiry. Susan Schreiner was exonerated completely. Yet honourable members opposite now put their trust in material which has been provided by this same person. In Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated that not only were the tapes and the transcripts not authenticated but also some of the transcripts were not even supported by taped conversations. They are transcripts which are not supported by any form of tape at all. Mr Bob Bottom claimed that the tapes and the documents that he had came from the police department in New South Wales . If Mr Bottom did not formally claim that, he strongly implied it. Let us look at what happened. The question was referred to Superintendent Bob Shepherd who is the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Intelligence. He said that his Bureau's precursor, the Crime Intelligence Unit, was not involved in the bugging and that a particular document was not one from the Crime Intelligence Unit. Premier Wran, in giving that advice to the New South Wales Parliament, said that the document 'is not genuine; if it is not genuine, it is false; and if it is false, it is phoney'. That was a statement by the New South Wales Premier, Neville Wran, when he reported to his Parliament. Does the Opposition suggest that Superintendent Shepherd is a liar? The New South Wales Government referred the tapes to the highest legal officer in the State, the New South Wales Solicitor-General, Mary Gaudron. The Solicitor- General suggested further inquiries be made into only five matters. Does the Opposition suggest that Mary Gaudron, the chief legal officer in New South Wales , is corrupt? The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) provided a detailed statement on all of these circumstances on 28 February. Mr Ruddock —You should have listened to Professor Lane this morning who gave a talk on it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dundas is still interjecting. I ask him to cease. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member is very cheeky. I hope that his constituents know about the type of disorderly disruption in which he engages in this House. On 28 February the Attorney-General provided a detailed statement on all of these circumstances to the Senate. I do not believe that the members of the Opposition in this chamber have taken the opportunity to read it. Had they done so they could not have made half of the absurd claims that they have been making. But the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, one of the mates of Opposition members, claimed that the Australian Federal Police investigation would be confined to the source of the tapes and would not extend to their content. Madam Deputy Speaker, that was a lie and the shadow Attorney-General knew that it was a lie. It was pointed out very clearly, of course, in the Attorney-General's report to the Senate on 28 February. The President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Ian Temby, QC, was then briefed to advise on possible offences against Federal law revealed in the tapes and the transcripts. His opinion was prepared with the assistance of the Acting Crown Solicitor and the senior officer of the Australian Federal Police. His opinion was tabled in the Senate. Of course it was largely on the basis of that opinion that the Attorney-General and the Government determined the course that they would take in connection with these questions. Does the Opposition claim that these people are corrupt? There is a question about whether the Government has properly responded. Mr Temby's opinion was available on 15 February. The decision about the proper and further course of inquiries was announced by the Attorney-General two days later, on 17 February. Mr Temby was appointed Special Prosecutor on 21 February. I will not go through the particular responsibilities with which Mr Temby has been charged, but no one, no reasonable person, could claim that those responsibilities are any less than adequate. Both Mr Temby, QC, and Mary Gaudron, the Solicitor-General in New South Wales, have stated that there is no authentication of either the tapes or the documentary material. Does the Opposition claim a conspiracy between these two respected and honourable people? How far is this Opposition prepared to go in this violent assault that it has unleashed on the integrity of legal officers, on the due processes of law and on respected and respectable citizens? This exercise is quite clearly undertaken by the Opposition with a view to the New South Wales elections. It has chosen to join its discredited colleagues in that State in one of the most vile exercises in misrepresentation, innuendo and character assassination that we have ever witnessed in this Commonwealth. Opposition members can take no credit and feel no pride in the fact that they have joined their colleagues in New South Wales in taking themselves down into the gutter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr NEWMAN —During the debate which has just concluded the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made an accusation that I had interfered in the Australian Federal Police prosecution of an alleged smuggling case against a Mr Volkman. The implication was that I had given directions or suggestions to the Police as to how they should prosecute this matter. I categorically deny that I ever did such a thing. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 221st report of the Committee, relating to finance minute on report 196-Australian War Memorial-curatorial and conservation functions, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —The 221st report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report No. 196. The Committee's 196th report, which examined the curatorial and conservation functions of the Australian War Memorial and other aspects of the national collection, was tabled in Parliament on 27 April 1982. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Auditor-General had reported in March 1981 on a number of weaknesses and inadequacies disclosed during a comprehensive audit of the Australian War Memorial. Broadly, the Auditor-General found: A lack of formal written objectives in regard to curatorship, loans and conservation; inadequate control, security, stocktaking and assessment of the collection; gaps in catalogues and registers and no maintenance or restoration programs; inadequacies in the loans policies. In general the criticisms of the Auditor-General were conceded and the thrust of the Memorial's response was to blame lack of staff. In the area of conservation alone there was an estimated backlog of 450 man years. Whilst focusing on the state of the War Memorial's collection, the Committee examined other aspects of the national collection held by the National Library of Australia, the Australian National Gallery and the Australian Archives and warned of the consequences of their neglect. The Committee described the national collection as being at a 'crisis stage' as a result of years of neglect and a lack of recognition of its worth and value. Given the importance and value of the national collection, of which the War Memorial's collection forms a significant proportion, the Committee saw a need for a review from the national viewpoint as to how much the national collection is valued and what price the nation is prepared to pay to retain it. The Committee identified the need for a more equitable and co-ordinated allocation, improved management and expansion of resources for the care and conservation of the national collection. The Committee is pleased to note that the main thrust of its recommendations have been accepted and implemented. In response to the Committee's inquiry the Public Service Board announced in 1982 the following changes at the Australian War Memorial: Expansion of full-time staff ceiling by 10 to 124; approval for the position of Registrar of Collections; creation of permanent positions of curator; approval for a senior officer responsible for writing the official history of the Vietnam War and the Malayan Emergency; and secondment of an experienced officer to assist in the preparation of an automatic data processing strategic plan for the War Memorial. The Committee's recommendations were addressed by an interdepartmental committee established on 23 July 1982. As a general response, the IDC considered that overall benefits could be gained if there were a formal co-ordinating body from which the Minister could receive advice, particularly on issues affecting more than one institution. The Advisory Committee on National Collections was established to provide an effective means of co-ordinating advice to the Government on all issues affecting the national collection and of facilitating the sharing of resources and co-operation between the institutions concerned. This Committee is chaired by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and includes the executive heads of the Australian Archives, the Australian National Gallery, the Australian War Memorial, the Museum of Australia and the National Library of Australia, with representatives from the Public Service Board and the departments of Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet. This Committee has been asked to produce major reports on resource sharing and funding; arrangements for improving the conservation and preservation of the national collection; and cataloguing items both in the national collection and held by the Commonwealth departments and authorities. The 1982-83 budget for the National Library was increased by $12.6m for extensions which included a new and modern conservation facility. Also announced was an $11m modernisation and renovation building program for the Australian War Memorial to be completed in time for the 1988 bicentenary. The Committee is pleased to note the interest generated by this report and the recent media coverage concerning the preservation of historic and archival material vital to Australia's national collection. I commend the report to honourable members. [COGNATE BILL: PROTECTION OF THE SEA (SHIPPING LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 as they are related measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? There being no objection I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(4.09) —The Opposition supports the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill, which are before the House. The House will recall that until 1982, on Australia Day I think it was, the registration of ships in this country was subject to law passed in the English Parliament. That legislation in fact went back to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. One of the Acts of the former Minister for Transport, the Hon. Ralph Hunt, was to remove one of those last vestiges of colonialism and in fact to institute a regime under which Australian flag ships would be registered under Australian legislation. That is entirely appropriate. In the two years since that legislation has been in operation a number of minor things have emerged and, as a result of their emergence, it has been determined that the legislation ought to be amended. As I have said, the Opposition has no difficulty with that. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has drawn attention to the fact that changes can be made with respect to ships of a certain length, some caveats in relation to mortgages, markings on ships, obsolete entries in the registry and things of that nature. The Opposition does not disagree with those changes. Similarly, with regard to the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill a consequential amendment has arisen simply because of the fact that the change in the measurement which is required for registration will require a consequential change for levy purposes. The Opposition does not oppose that change either. I take this opportunity to say to the House and to the Minister that, despite what the Minister may think are the Opposition's intentions for the shipping industry and shipping services to and from Australia and around the Australian coast, our concern is for one thing only, that is, that Australia should have an efficient shipping industry. In a country as vast as ours and as isolated from the rest of the world as ours is, and with the enormous lengths of sea lanes both to this country and around the Australian coast, it is essential that the shipping services we enjoy be as efficient as possible. Anything that can be done to improve the efficiency of those shipping services will have the full support of the Opposition. I assure the House, and anybody outside it who may be interested, that in government the single factor I would wish to pursue would be efficiency in the shipping industry. It is self-evident that, if we are to pursue efficiency in this industry, as in any other, we must have competition. Competition is critical if there is to be any improvement in the level of efficiency. As one surveys the shipping industry, it is apparent that in the bulk trades the level of competition is quite healthy. The rates are competitive and the service which is provided on those bulk trades is quite satisfactory. As far as I am aware the Opposition would not want to make any changes in relation to the bulk trade serving Australia. In the liner trade it is important that we maintain a healthy degree of non- conference competition. It has been argued that, in order to keep the conference system honest, the Australian National Line must play a very important role and the Australian National Line ought to be maintained to keep that window into the industry, as it is termed, and to ensure that there is no ripoff of Australian importers and exporters by the conference system. In general terms I have no difficulty with the conference system as long as it is coupled with a reasonable amount of non-conference competition. The conference arrangement has served Australia well over a long period. It has provided regular services at predictable rates, and I think it will continue to do that. I am sure that this Government and a future government of the Liberal and National parties would not wish to interfere with the traditional conference structure that has served Australia well. But it is essential that the conference lines be exposed to a reasonable degree of non-conference competition . I will give one example. My colleague the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), is in the House and I know that he is dealing later today with some wool legislation. He would be interested to run through the experience that the wool industry has had in negotiations for the shipment of wool. Recent negotiations to take the wool clip from Australia to Europe started at the previous year's conference rate of $2, 109 per container. Some of the non-conference lines came into the picture and offered a rate of approximately $1,350 per container. As a result of the injection of that competition from the non-conference lines, the traditional conference carriers negotiated with the industry and the final settlement was reached at a rate of $1,465 per container. Mr McVeigh —Good old-fashioned competition. Mr LUSHER —As the honourable member for Darling Downs points out in his normal enthusiastic way, that was the result of a bit of good old- fashioned competition. That has been obviously for the benefit of the wool industry and I have no doubt that the shipping companies are not losing money on the rate they have negotiated; otherwise they would not have negotiated it. They knew that the non-conference lines would take the wool to Europe for about $1,350 per container if the negotiation with the conference operators could not have been concluded successfully. That is just an example of the effect and the importance that competition has in this industry for the benefit of the Australian exporter generally. In the coastal trade it is another story altogether. As the House will be aware , the coastal trade is entirely protected by the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912. The Navigation Act causes me the greatest single amount of concern in relation to the Australian shipping industry. Unless ships comply with the ownership and manning provisions of the Navigation Act they are prohibited from plying the coastal trade except in particular one-off circumstances when they need the permission of the Minister. It is something of which the House will be aware as it goes back over a long period. It was determined way back in the dim past that coastal shipping trade was part of the domestic transport task and therefore ought to be protected for the benefit of the domestic transport industry even though, over the many years that have ensued, the benefit to the domestic transport industry may well have been to the detriment of industry and of opportunities for economic growth in Australia. I have suggested that we should have an inquiry into coastal shipping. On several occasions the Industries Assistance Commission has looked at problems related to coastal shipping and has suggested that there should be a major inquiry into it. I again say to the Minister that, if it is in his mind to refer the coastal shipping industry to some form of an inquiry, he would certainly have the unanimous and bipartisan support of the Opposition. It is something which in the national interest needs to be looked at. It needs a thorough examination. Port charges, stevedoring charges and a whole range of matters of that nature, which are not directly within the purview of this Parliament are still matters of concern when one considers the state of the shipping industry in Australia. I hope that if the Minister is of a mind to institute some sort of inquiry into shipping, even if it were only coastal shipping, he might be prepared to go so far as to include within the ambit of an inquiry some of those charges for which State governments have responsibility. There is a general degree of dissatisfaction amongst users throughout the industry. It needs to be exposed to the full light of scrutiny; that will only help, in my view, the objective which we should all have, that is, of getting rid of inefficiency, keeping costs as low as possible, and getting as much competition as we can into this industry which is vital to Australia's import and export industries and to those who have to ship cargo around the coast. I hope there would be no dispute about that between the Government and the Opposition. Many figures have been used to indicate the extent of the problem. I will use one or two of them again this afternoon. The Industries Assistance Commission, when it made its inquiry into steel a few years back, indicated that the cost to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd of the protection of the coastal trade was between $20m and $25m a year. Again, my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, would be concerned that when the IAC made an inquiry into the sugar industry it found that the cost to the sugar industry of protection of that coastal trade was estimated at between $4m a year and $8.7m a year. There are two industries which have been the subject of an estimate by the Industries Assistance Commission in recent times. I do not think there would be any disputation in the chamber about the capacity of the Industries Assistance Commission to come up with a more or less accurate figure in relation to the additional costs imposed upon those two industries as a result of the protection of the coastal trade. Mr McVeigh —The honourable member for Wide Bay is interested in that too, of course. Mr LUSHER —I am sure that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) would be interested, because he is from that very productive Queensland region where so much of Australia's sugar is produced. He would share that concern, I know. The Minister would be concerned too, I think. Although he has concerns about maintaining the status quo in the shipping industry and, if honourable members will pardon the pun, he is not too keen to rock the boat, he would be concerned about the additional costs that are being passed on to industry. Ultimately they have to be paid by consumers or by exporters. Those costs must be kept within bounds. It is particularly difficult to justify the additional costs when an organisation as authoritative as the Industries Assistance Commission puts hard figures on the additional cost burdens which have to be borne by industries. It is beyond dispute that the Australian shipping industry is regarded internationally as being a very high cost and a very inefficient industry. I do not say that by way of criticism; I say it by way of drawing attention to the fact. We cannot hide these problems and pretend that they do not exist. The fact is that that situation is recognised around the world in all sorts of different ways. The measurements have been made by those who are independent in this matter. I do not seek to do anything more than pick up the arguments and the figures which they have adduced and calculated as a result of having made their studies. If we take into account that in 1981 the average annual cost of operating a vessel of between 100,000 tonnes and 130,000 tonnes ranged from $US1 .8m for open registry flag vessels to $US2.4m for British flag vessels and to $ US3.8m for Australian flag vessels we understand why it is that there are enormous difficulties in trying to develop an Australian flag fleet. One of the European lines did an analysis on the basis of having to crew one of their ships to Australian standards, compared with being able to crew it to European standards. It estimated that the additional costs of meeting the Australian manning levels would be a million dollars a year. These costs are real costs and they are the sorts of costs that are holding down investment in the Australian shipping industry. They are the sorts of costs which prevent the Australian shipping industry from being able to provide the sorts of jobs that I know the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) is interested in and concerned about. I share his concern. One reason that I am not a great supporter of the Crawford proposals is that even with their full implementation it would not be possible for the sorts of additional costs about which I have spoken in this debate to be overcome. If the Minister or the honourable member for Macarthur is able to convince me that, as a result of depreciation and the investment allowance incentives that will become available to Australian shipping as a result of the implementation of the Crawford proposals and assuming the most generous improvement in productivity and reductions in manning scales, we can overcome these sorts of cost impediments, I will be only too happy to agree with the Crawford proposition. The difficulty that I have is one that must be shared by all after consideration of the comparison of the annual operating costs of an English vessel, let alone open registry vessel, with those of an Australian flag vessel. The annual operating costs for the English vessel are $US2.4m; those for the Australian flag vessel are $US3.8m. Thus even with the full implementation of the Crawford proposals the reality must be that the Australian industry will still be inefficient and uncompetitive compared with the international industry. That ought to be of concern to every one of us in this House. It is clear to me that if we had a more competitive industry-if rates were lower and if a greater volume of product was being moved by sea than is presently the case, particularly around the coast-there would have to be significant improvement in the amount of employment that could be offered not only in the operation of the ships but also in their building. Perhaps it is possible that we could revitalise the ship building industry in Australia as a result. As long as the industry is to be cosseted and protected there will be no competition and no competition whatever from outside will be allowed. The Minister and I traded some figures about manning levels in a debate here last week. Without becoming involved in the extremes of those figures, even a reasonable use of them shows that the Australian standard is far too high. It would be obvious to anybody that, so long as we have a continuation of manning rates which are too high by any accepted international standard, the Australian industry must languish and any significant employment that is to be offered in that industry will be at the expense of others. It is that sort of concern which I would like to expand now. To follow the recommendations of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping would be a potentially costly exercise. A study was made on the Crawford report on the basis that only one new bulk carrier per year be added to the Australian fleet, subject to the Crawford depreciation investment allowance provisions. On the basis of that study, the revenue which would have been forgone over a 10-year period would have been $95m. On the basis of the 10 additional ships and assuming that they would be double-crewed, 550 additional jobs would be created. The cost of each additional job created would be $172,000 . That is a lot of money to create a job. I am sure that if one were to go to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who has responsibility for the community employment programs, and say to him that in Maryborough, Toowoomba, Cootamundra or Griffith a job creation scheme was going on and one was in the queue with an application and that the cost would be $172, 000 to provide employment for one person, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would probably send one packing. Yet in the shipping industry, because the cost is being shared across all the taxpayers of Australia and the benefit is only in the hands of those few who will receive the employment, the whole exercise is glossed over. I think this is something at which we need to have a very thorough look. A question I raised in this House on an earlier occasion, and no doubt I will raise it again, related to the Christmas Island phosphate trade. In the period of the last Labor Government when Charlie Jones was the Minister, he made a decree that the Christmas Island phosphate trade should be brought in under the coastal trade regime and that the provisions of the Navigation Act should apply to that trade. As a result there was a 60 per cent increase in the freight rate. Mr McVeigh —Does that mean that the farmers have to pay more for their fertiliser? Mr LUSHER —The shadow Minister for Primary Industry has taken the words out of my mouth again because he has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the farmers of Australia have to suffer the cost of that increased freight on the Christmas Island rock phosphate, and there was a 60 per cent increase in the freight rate. If one were to do one's calculations again, one would find out that the cost created as a result of bringing in Christmas Island phosphate under the coastal regime was $29,000 per job. That sort of thing is extremely difficult to justify. When we look at the efficiency of the Australian shipping industry and the cost burden which falls upon the farmers, the exporters or the general consumers of Australia, we see that it is very difficult to go out and justify to them why this regime ought to operate. The honourable member for Macarthur has an honest and honourable interest in the shipping industry, as has the Minister. I am quite happy about having open and healthy debate about the subject, but I think even the honourable member will have difficulty in justifying cosseting to such an extent. Mr McVeigh —But no one would support that sort of cosseting. Mr LUSHER —I agree with the shadow Minister for Primary Industry that nobody could defend it. In the interests of debate and of open discussion I am more than happy to listen to other honourable members. I do not want to suppress debate, because if the honourable member for Macarthur or the Minister have views as to how such cost can be justified, I would like to hear them. The fact remains that with the best will in the world we have a problem industry on our hands. It is a problem industry more so in regard to the coastal trade than it is perhaps in some other respects. But in regard to the coastal trade I say that there needs to be a very serious examination and, in my view, a thorough inquiry . I know that when the Minister responds he will stand up and say: 'Of course, this went on for years and years under the previous Government'. He will say that he is doing nothing other than carrying on where we left off except for the fact that he has improved relations between the unions and the Government and that he has pumped $100m worth of taxpayers' funds into the Australian National Line. He has not, to my satisfaction at least, given justification as to why we should maintain the ANL as a government owned statutory authority. I know that the Minister will respond in that way and I do not suppose that it ought to come as a surprise to me when he does. I would like to see the Minister turn his concern not so much to what we did in the past or to whether my views are different from the views of earlier coalition Ministers for transport or whether they are different from his views or whether his views are different from somebody else's. I think this is a question about which we all have to be adult enough to rule off the books at some stage and say: 'Well, let us have an objective look at it. What is the situation?' The situation is that we have an industry which is troublesome. It is not an efficient industry and what can we do to try to improve it? My view, and I am prepared to argue it and to listen to debate about it, is that even with the efforts that are being made by the present Minister to improve the situation, we will still be left with an industry which is inefficient and more costly than it should be to Australian exporters and to users and consumers of shipping services in general. I make a plea for a fresh start and a fresh approach in relation to the way in which we look at shipping in this country and the way in which we look at it as legislators in this Parliament. I can give the Minister an undertaking that if he wants to take an approch that will result in a more efficient shipping industry, he will have the support of the Opposition because it would be irresponsible of the Opposition to oppose anything which would result in an efficient industry. Mr McVeigh —But he would have to cut out featherbedding. Mr LUSHER —Obviously he would have to deal with featherbedding. He would have to deal with a range of problems. He and the honourable member for Macarthur acknowledge, as I do, the extent to which the problems are there. I say in a spirit of bipartisanship that Australia needs to have an efficient shipping services at the lowest cost possible. Whatever the Government is prepared to do towards achieving that aim would be agreed to by the Opposition. Equally, what the Government does not do to achieve that will be disputed by the Opposition, which will continue to pursue the establishment of an efficient shipping industry in Australia. I thank the House. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(4.39) —It is indeed gratifying to hear the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) say that the Opposition wants an efficient shipping service. The honourable member for Hume and the Opposition may be assured that that is what the Hawke Labor Government is working towards. I am pleased to take part in this debate on two shipping Bills, which I admit will not grab the headlines in tomorrow's Press, but which nevertheless are important to Australia 's maritime industry. I refer to the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984. I am pleased that in general the Bills have received bipartisan support. I believe that on many matters which deal with shipping there should be bipartisan support. I only wish that the Opposition would get its act together on shipping. We have the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), saying one thing and the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) saying something else. I, for one, would like to know exactly where they stand on the Crawford report. Today the honourable member for Hume again agonised over that report. It was commissioned by the now Deputy Leader of the National Party the honourable member for Gwydir, when he was Minister for Transport. I believe that it is supported by him yet it has been abused and thrown out by the present shadow Minister, who said in the House during the debate on Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5): The Crawford report seeks to buy industrial peace at the expense of the taxpayer and probably also at the expense of the exporter. Is that the view of the Deputy Leader of the National Party or indeed of the Opposition? The comment by the honourable member for Hume was an attack on his Deputy Leader. Is it any wonder that I am confused, as are many others, about the Opposition's shipping policy or lack of it. The Bills before the House demonstrate the Governments' commitment to constantly review and improve maritime legislation. During l983 the Government introduced the marine pollution package and last November conveyed Australia's acceptance of four international conventions and two protocols. The Shipping Registration Amendment Bill improves the existing Act by providing more flexible provisional registration procedures. This will save time and worry, especially for owners of pleasure craft. It will also allow vessel owners to operate their vessels overseas in advance of formal registration being granted. Provisional registration for six months can be granted, with further extentions being available if needed. The measure will greatly reduce initial red tape problems. The Bill introduces 24 metres as the minimum length above which commercial ships must be registered, and overcomes the current requirement of measurement for tonnage, which can be a very expensive exercise for owners. The Bill will also allow the registration of ships that are smaller than 24 metres without a prerequisite that they be measured for tonnage. It introduces protection for persons who have unsecured claims against vessels by allowing the lodgment of caveats which will prevent the Registrar of Ships from recording transactions in respect of a particular ship. This will result in considerable cost saving compared with the obtaining of Supreme Court orders as is now required. The Bill also provides protection, in the form of compensation, for persons adversely affected by frivolous action. The purpose of the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill is to impose a levy on all ships that are able to cause pollution by virtue of having more than 10 tonnes of oil on board. The levy collected is to be applied to the acquisition of modern oil spillage combat equipment which is to be placed in stockpiles around Australia. This is very important. Oil spills are a constant worry and can do enormous damage. It is essential that these stockpiles be held around Australia. In my own area, around Port Kembla, we have been subjected to spillage. Last year, in Botany Bay, there was spillage which could have been quite damaging and a couple of years ago there was also spillage at the top of the Great Barrier Reef. Honourable members can imagine, if there were a severe spillage there, how environmentally damaging it could be. Therefore, it is essential, as the Bill provides, that these stockpiles be held around Australia. The levy will also be applied to the training of Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory personnel to combat oil spills. That is also very important. In my view it is pointless to have oil spill equipment to combat such a spill or its effects unless we also have personnel who are adequately trained in its use. The levy will also meet the cost of combating and cleaning up in cases where costs are not recoverable from the polluter. Some honourable members may argue that such costs should be recoverable. Hopefully they will be, but where they are not funds will be provided under the Bill. The Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill embodies an amendment that is consequential upon the passage of the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill. It changes the application of the Act from ships greater than 100 registered tonnes having 10 tonnes of oil on board to ships of 24 metres or more having 10 tonnes of oil on board. This change improves the application of the Act by extending its operation to ships formerly exempted because they happened not to have a register measurement of cargo-carrying capacity. For example, tugs often carry considerable quantities of fuel and therefore are pollution risks in the same way as are other ships to which the Act applies. Both of these Bills are an improvement on the existing Acts. The Government can be proud of its achievements in the maritime industry. It has been in office for only a year and a day and it deserves congratulations, as does the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), upon what has been achieved in so short a space of time. I must contrast the policy of this Government with the no policy stand of the Opposition as represented in this chamber by the honourable member for Hume in the form of a moronic policy of wanting to sell everything off. Indeed, he even wants to sell Tasmania off. I refer to statements made by him on 2 April l981 and recorded at page 1239 of Hansard: I ask the Treasurer whether it is necessary, for defence purposes, that some Australians occupy Tasmania. Is this the only reason some Australians live in that State? . . . can sovereignty of Tasmania be transferred to New Zealand and, if any subsidies are still required, can they be paid under the foreign aid vote ? These sarcastic comments indicate the honourable member's view of Tasmania. I do not want to embarrass him by quoting more. After all, he might need the Tasmanian members' vote at some time, but I seek leave to have recorded in Hansard the full statement that was made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The honourable member is not free to seek leave for that purpose. Leave is not granted. Mr HOLLIS —The Liberal Tasmanian members in this House should not rely on the honourable member for Hume for protection. Indeed, it is extremely fortunate for the Tasmanian members, in fact the people of Tasmania, that the Labor Party is in power and able to look after their interests, especially maritime interests, rather than have the honourable member for Hume look after them. I have referred to the need for a bipartisan approach to shipping. As I have said before in the House, if Australia is to achieve its full potential as a trading nation we must have a viable shipping industry. I developed this theme last week when speaking during the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill, but to achieve this we must have a flag carrier. This Government, in a period of 12 months, has revitalised the Australian National Line. It is important to contrast the approach of the current Minister for Transport with that of some of his predecessors. The Government and the Minister are committed to working with the shipping industry in resolving the difficulties which will arise as we move towards improving our international competitiveness and building the basis for future growth in the industry. The Government will continue to work to develop an efficient Australian shipping industry. The Government has made known, directly and indirectly, its wish to increase the Australian flag share of our commercial shipping. We must have an efficient commercial shipping industry. We should contrast the approach of this Government and indeed this Minister with that of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) when he had charge of the shipping portfolio. I will quote-I will not ask for permission to have it incorporated-from the book So Ends This Day, the autobiography of Captain Sir John Williams who, for l5 years, was the first chairman of the Australian National Line. At page 2l2, Sir John writes: To our surprise, not long after his appointment, Sinclair informed us that we should now regard the Commission as what he termed a political instrument. He goes on to say that some of the tactics employed were petty beyond belief and that it was his impression that Sinclair was involved in the meanest of them. He adds: The record shows that the political instrument policy put the Commission in the red for the first time since its inception in 1956. Is it any wonder Australian shipping was in such a mess when we won office, with one former Minister making it a political instrument and the shadow Minister wanting to sell it off and, for good measure, give Tasmania to New Zealand? This Government has done more for Australian shipping in one year than the previous one did in seven misguided years. As I said at the outset, the two Bills before the House are not controversial- they will not be the headlines in tomorrow's papers-but they are important to Australia's maritime industry. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.51) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and the honourable member for Macarthur ( Mr Hollis) for their contributions to the debate. I appreciate the bipartisan view expressed by the Opposition in respect of the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 and the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984. In a way this is a sequence to the bipartisan view I expressed from the other side of the chamber in respect of the original legislation in 1981. I should mention that the honourable member for Macarthur is an active member of the Government transport policy committee. He is a very hard worker and supporter of the Australian shipping industry-as he rightly says, an efficient Australian shipping industry. In recognising the views that have been expressed in the preceding debate, I want to say that this Government does not intend to accept responsibility for all the failures of the shipping transport policies of the previous Government. Mr Lusher —I said: 'Let us rule off the books'. Mr PETER MORRIS —Very well, rule off the books, but rule them off with double red lines. They are the previous Government's failures, and I have no intention of picking up responsibility for its failures. The Opposition should not come to me with its failures. The point was made on behalf of the Opposition that it is essential that shipping services be efficient. Sure, that is the case, but it is a fallacy to suggest that competition by itself equals efficiency-that is not the case. Competition is an aid to efficiency, but competition does not equal efficiency. I think there is no better example of this than the road transport industry. The level of bankruptcies, the social disruptions and social costs and the costs associated with road accidents are all part of the overall picture of costs and benefits that flow out of a particular situation. It is a very simplistic approach to try to suggest that all one needs is competition if one is to achieve efficiency. I suggest to the Opposition, and particularly to those members who have a genuine regard for the needs of primary industry in the years to come, that the shippers' paradise that has prevailed in the world over recent years will not continue. Already freight rates are on the move upwards on a global scale. We have had a buyers' market in recent years, but that situation will not continue. So future operations should not be planned on the basis of what has happened in the past few years. Once the market starts to turn upwards, once freight rates start to rise, I have no doubt that those people who at the moment are screaming that there is no place for an Australian shipping industry will be saying: ' Please, government, help us-stop these rates going up. We should have our own industry'. So we need to take a longer term view. The essence of the policy that we are trying to implement is that there has to be efficiency balanced with improved productivity, on the part of not only the work force within the industry but also management. There has to be participation of government and a recognition by the clients who are served by the industry that there is a transitional period to go through. That transition has commenced. Whilst I welcome the bipartisan approach of the Opposition and its support of the provisions of the legislation-by the way, the matters that have been discussed in the debate have been well away from what is contained in the legislation-I just want to make those points clear. There is a tough time ahead of us. There is a limit to what government can do in respect of reforming the shipping industry. But that reform should go ahead and it will go ahead only with the support of the work force involved. No government can do anything to improve an industry if the people in that work force cannot agree among themselves as to what should apply within that industry. Having said that in respect of the work force, there also has to be a recognition on the part of management and the users of that industry. It is only as a nation, on a joint and co-operative basis, that we will achieve the efficient, long term type of Australian shipping industry that this country as a major trading nation ought to have. It is an abysmal reflection on all those governments that have gone before us that this country as a major trading nation has one of the most meagre shipping industries in the world. Not only do we not have a shipping industry; we also do not have any ship repair industry of magnitude or any ship building industry of magnitude. Both of those industries flow from an Australian shipping industry. So I welcome the change of attitude of the Opposition. Mr Moore —Labour costs are too high. That is the reason. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not just labour costs. In fact, in the Australian shipping industry the first factor, which is a long way out in front of everything, is debt servicing. The number one factor by a long shot is investment in the freight vehicle and the servicing of that investment. If we look at some of the recent labour costs in Australia we will find-- Mr Moore —It is-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! Mr PETER MORRIS —It is one of the factors, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to give a considered response to the interjection because an important issue has been raised. It is one of the factors. Mr Moore —It is the major factor. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is not the major factor; it is about factor three or four generally. But I accept that it is one of the factors. In the Crawford legislation, which is now in the other place and deals with the accelerated depreciation allowance for Australian shipping, we have tried to put Australian shipping investors on a somewhat similar basis to overseas shipping investors, so that there will be a tax benefit to help with the debt servicing problem. Looking at the labour side of the problem, I agree that we have to look at productivity. All I am saying is that that productivity can come about only when people within the industry, management and government work together. This can be achieved. It would also be in the interests of this country if this were achieved. However, as I said, there needs to be co-operation. A point was made about coastal policy. Again I have to say: 'Do not bring your failures to me'. The preservation of coastal trade for Australian owned and manned ships has been the policy of successive governments since 1912. The present Opposition says we ought to depart from this arrangement. This Government does not agree with that view. We see coastal shipping operations as part of the domestic transport task. What we need to do and what has not been done by conservative governments in the past 30 years is to move to ensure that that coastal shipping service is more efficient and more competitive with other forms of transport. The way in which to do that is to look, firstly, at the productivity of shipping services and, secondly, at land costs related to shipping services. I repeat what I said last week: There is a tremendous over-emphasis on blue water shipping costs in this country-the costs of moving cargo from outside the heads of a port to outside the heads of a port of destination. There is almost a complete ignorance of the other, conservatively, 80 per cent of the costs of that transport journey that relate to land costs, be it for consolidation, movements to a port, port charges-port charges are only one element-or rail charges. Mr Lusher —Include them in the inquiry. Let us have an inquiry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! If the honourable member for Hume and the honourable member for Ryan are desirous of having a chat with the Minister I suggest they make arrangements for a later hour. The Minister is now required to address the House through the Chair. I invite him to ignore interjections. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the Chair for its excellent advice, which I intend to accept. All of these matters, particularly the domestic transport task, need to be considered in the context of shipping costs. They are going to be addressed. We would have hoped that this would have been done by the previous Government. I said a few days ago at the last meeting of the Marine and Ports Council of Australia that we, on our initiative, were able to obtain the unaminous agreement of all State Ministers to the conduct of a seminar by the Bureau of Transport Economics. My planning at this stage is that that seminar will be held some time in July. The purpose of the seminar will be to discuss land costs related to the shipping industry-all of the elements I mentioned earlier. This is a step forward. I am looking forward to a positive input from all of the parties involved. The problem of the phosphate industry has again been exacerbated by the provision of import subsidies by the previous Government and a downturn in comparable shipping rates. It was a matter that the previous Government had seven years to address. It is not a new issue. The rates applying in respect of transport are part of a contract of some years standing. The rates have not changed. The industry needs have changed. This matter is certainly being addressed by this Government. It has been discussed by officials. We have it under consideration. But, as the previous Government recognised, it is a complex and difficult problem. We hope to be able to make further progress on it in the near future. I thank those who participated in the debate, I thank the House for its support and I commend the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 February 1984, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.03) —The Bill before the House extends the period of support to the industry from 28 March to 10 May when the Government has said it will then make a decision on the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission . The report covers computer hardware and software, typewriters, calculators and other office machines and parts and accessories of the recording media. Assistance was afforded to the industry at a rate of 20 per cent of value added support; that is, the difference between the factory cost of production and the cost of materials and parts used. That amount has been phased down to the present rate of 7.5 per cent. It is due to terminate on 28 March 1984. The report of the IAC has been with the Government since February. As I said, determination is due in May. The interest in sport of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) obviously has not speeded up his consideration of this matter. The question of assistance comes into focus in this Bill because it strikes me-I have formerly had responsibility for these matters-that the way we go about the protection of industry is somewhat inefficient. This area is very material to the consumer in Australia and will be important to Australia and the whole Australian commercial scene for many years to come. Consideration should be given to the foster industry approach and not to granting long term protection under a straight bounty or duty arrangement. Honourable members will be aware that industry assistance is granted to foster new industries and later to protect them from outside competition. Special dumping procedures are put aside to stop foreign items competing against the Australian products in an unfair fashion. The sort of protection I have in mind is more along the lines of contract protection. In other words, an industry might come to town and say that it can produce an item using Australian workmanship or materials but to establish itself it needs certain assistance during the initial period because of the small Australian market, transport costs or other costs associated with the industry. Undoubtedly, it would involve a fair degree of government and business co-operation. But the Government could agree that, over a limited period, that certain assistance by way of either duty or, more preferably, direct bounty payments would be made to these firms. Everybody would know what the cost was, where it came from and the concept of contract protection would be there. If, at the end of the period, the company had not succeeded the Australian taxpayer would not be called on to continue to shoulder the burden. I put this suggestion forward because it seems that certain industries have started down the track with some protection being afforded to them. Politicians in marginal electorates pay particular attention to the needs of firms in their electorates. Usually, at the end of the period of initial assistance political pressure is brought to bear for extra assistance to be given to industries based , not on economic considerations, but on pure political considerations. A number of companies-I was particularly conscious of this during the review of the textile, clothing and footwear industries-did very little to improve their efficiency but relied more on government assistance. I recall one company substantially owned by an overseas corporation, which had got to the stage where its unit labour cost was subsidised by in excess of 200 per cent. That company still said that it could not survive. Frankly, it did not deserve to survive but because of its position within a certain electorate and because of its connection within the structure of the textile industry, assistance continued and the company is still operating today. Consultations should have been held with the corporation about the necessity for certain capital requirements, a certain rearrangement of its employment and a certain re-ordering of its production lines. Failure to do that would mean that it would not fall within the contract protection concept. If that criterion were followed I am sure that a more vigorous approach by management in some of these companies would come about. I am aware that the industries affected by this Bill are all relatively new. One in my electorate has been very innovative in its approach, not only in software and some programming but also in its attempt to build computers. It has had one or two financial difficulties as any entrepreneur seems to have. It has struggled on. I think it might well come out of it in the future. The most interesting thing is that that firm has never sought from me, its local member, an increase in assistance or the maintenance of assistance. All it has wanted is access to markets, international as well as domestic. It has been very aggressive. Despite its financial problems I wish that company well in its endeavours because it has certainly tried to sell in all markets around the world and has been very largely successful. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(5.10) —This Bill proposes to amend the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 by extending the period of operation of that Act beyond 28 March 1984, the date on which it is scheduled to cease. The Act provides bounty assistance to Australian producers of certain automatic data processing equipment and parts at the rate of 7.5 per cent of the value added. Like many other measures designed to assist Australian industry, this Bill will allow the Government time to consider fully its long term desires for and assistance to the Australian computer hardware, software and related industries. I will say something more about these industries in a moment, but let me outline the importance of medium and longer term planning in this area, and in industry generally. The planning approach is a significant feature which differentiates the approach to industry of this Government from the approach of the previous conservative Government, which had no idea whatsoever how to approach industry development. We heard much rhetoric about free market forces being allowed to play their role, about so-called competition, but in fact what we had was a confused mixture of government intervention and market interplay which, in its final upshot, resulted in no particular plan whatsoever for industry but certainly resulted in some disastrous consequences for Australian industry generally. One of the major areas in which this is easily illustrated is the computer industry. It is an absolute disgrace that Australia does not have a fully established and functioning computer industry. Members of the previous Government must bear the brunt of the blame for this. For seven years, while the rest of the world proceeded apace in the development of computer industries, we fell further and further behind. Can anyone now doubt the importance of computer and computer related industries to modern technology, to modern industry and indeed to modern life? It would be a brave person indeed who would not agree with the proposition that computerisation in one form or another has revolutionised the modern world. The fact is that Australia, as a modern society in the computer age, ought to have been part of that process and to have been very much involved in the development of both hardware and software. More than 20 years ago-28 years, to be exact-we had the first Australian computers and the birth of the computer industry in Australia. What has happened ? Was that industry developed; was it encouraged by government? Certainly not. Instead, it was nipped in the bud because it was not given sufficient protection , sufficient investment incentive and not even enough research and development in the universities to support it. It was in that kind of situation that the Australian computer industry failed. We have had some disastrous occurrences recently. I refer in particular to the failure of the Brisbane based Hartley computer organisation in 1983. A report entitled 'Computers in Australia', volume 3, by Thornton, refers to the failure of that organisation and says, on page 69: It seems likely that a main reason for the Hartley failure (in 1983), was simply that the company was becoming a serious threat to imported, small business computers. Massive marketing efforts by Hartley's competitors and possibly, even some of its apparent friends, would seem to have forced the failure. But, sadly, none of the Australian makers are doing much more than assemble imported components into computer systems, and few could be said to offer a serious challenge (in the third decade of Australian computing), to imported machinery. It seems surprising that we have managed to lag so far behind other nations in a field where we started off so well. Bulgaria, hardly one of the world's most advanced nations, has a large computer industry. While of its products seem to be clones of IBM's 1960's style machines , they are made up from locally-produced components. Poland has a largish computer industry. Its largest maker is one that builds ICL equipment under agreement with the United Kingdom company. The Polish name for these machines, is a word that means something like influenza. East Germany has its ROBOTRON computer maker, and several small business machine makers as well. ROBOTRON is also a seming clone of IBM but this time of its mid-1970's style machines. Mainland China has the Shanghai Street Doorknob company, which makes small to medium machines or rebuilds old Western-made computers, that are purchased in the West or imported from places where American computers have fallen into the hands of other nation's armies. In our own region, the Philippine Islands has an active industry. In contrast, we import all our components from other nations over tens of thousands of kilometres of indefensible seas. These components are also the spare parts we need to maintain the computers we have already installed after importing them over those same indefensible seas. It seems absurd that, despite our proven capability to make significant proportions of computer componentry here, we still have to rely on imported components on a day-to-day basis. We are isolated here from many of our suppliers, and it is really very strange that we are not trying to become self- sufficient in the sort of components vital to keep our computers running. This damning document, by an acknowledged expert, indicates just how far we as a nation have fallen behind in the computer industry. I am talking primarily in terms of hardware, but a similar story could be painted in relation to software. The planning process this Government has adopted will go forward and the computer industry will be one of the major areas it will be looking towards in terms of developing new industries, because unless it looks at least at some forms of computerisation being developed here it will not be in a position to fulfil its promise to establish new industries. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has often spoken about the enormous potential in Australia for computer software development. That does not mean that Australia has to do everything in every area of software, but we have to plan and determine which particular areas we are most able to develop and then go into the development of those areas. Not all decisions in this process can be taken simply by the Minister or Ministers involved. We need information and we need the goodwill of the community, especially the business community, which can come forward and make suggestions to us about the ways in which we can develop aspects of the hardware and software industries. We will be asking them to bring forward those plans so that we can proceed with them. It does not follow from the remarks I have made that one has to take up an entirely original area of production. It may be the case that there is sufficient domestic demand in certain areas for us to actually produce on a patent basis certain types of computers that are produced in other places. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, once we start that process we may be capable of refining those products and developing them further to meet Australian conditions. As I say, if we are to participate in the modern world as a technologically developed country we have to look towards developing a computer industry in this way. Finally, if it is possible for various companies and corporations to take advantage of the new scheme introduced by the Government at the end of last year -that is the scheme to encourage venture capital in high technology industries and to form management investment companies to take advantage of the 100 per cent write-off which will be available for industry development in these areas- we would urge them to come forward and apply so that they can get into, amongst other areas of high technology, the computer development area. I urge those who are listening and those who are making business decisions in Australia to think about the great possibilities which the Labor Government has opened up in this area and to take advantage of those opportunities so that in a decade's time, rather than looking back at lost opportunities in the computer development area, we will be able to say with pride that we managed to catch up to a considerable degree with the rest of the world. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(5.22) —I speak today on the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill. While I was listening to the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) he reminded me of an occasion some years ago when I attended the first robotics symposium in Australia. I stood in the Chisholm Institute of Technology looking wistfully at the first computer that was ever designed and manufactured in Australia. Standing next to me was an elderly gentleman. I said to him: 'That was a marvel years ago. I wonder how the people actually operated it and kept it going'. He turned to me and said: 'I had a bit to do with it in those days'. That gentleman was Dr Trevor Pearcy, who was one of the original designers of that machine. The machine is sitting there at the Chisholm Institute. It is a symbol of inaction by previous governments. I am fairly certain that I would be the only member of this House to have actually designed, manufactured and sold specialised data processing equipment. Some years ago I started manufacturing electronic data processing equipment at home. I had been an electronics technician for many years and decided that I could design and manufacture articles as good as or even better than those imported into Australia from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I built a machine called a decollator using, as far as possible, Australian made equipment, even if it did cost more. I was able to manufacture these articles competitively only because of the protection from the Commonwealth Government in the form of a tariff which had been placed on this type of equipment. From one backyard machine I progressed to manufacture hundreds and then expanded out into many other areas of EDP equipment. The Australian computer industry, of which I have been a member since the days when computers were operated by valves, needs as much protection as we can give it. I have argued in this House that we must adapt to new technology quickly, but we must also develop our own technology. We rely too much on foreign companies. We have the innovative people here. Every support must be given to them. Through the effort of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), the Department of Science and Technology has been elevated to a high profile within the community. What we have to do now is capitalise on the ideas that are emerging from our thinkers because of the stimulus of the Minister's effort. The IBMs of this world will do all that they possibly can to knock out competition. One has only to read the history of IBM in a book by William Rodger entitled Think-I am pleased to own a copy-to realise the ruthlessness of large multinationals in the EDP and office equipment industry. Even in today's Age there is an article warning the Government over offset policy relating to EDP equipment. The article states: The Australian Computer Equipment Suppliers' Association has warned the Federal Government that overseas computer companies would have to re-think about tendering for large Government contracts, if it raises offset requirements by another 10 per cent. The article continues: 'It could become unfeasible for some computer companies to bid for Government computer contracts, if Cabinet adopts this proposal,' the executive director of the Australian Computer Equipment Suppliers' Association (ACESA), Bob Mounic said. 'They will simply have to reassess the cost of doing business with the Government'. We must insulate Australia from this subtle form of control which is trying to be imposed on the Government in regard to EDP equipment. A strong competitive Australian computer industry will be able to counter these threats. The ACESA is made up mainly of large multinational companies hiding under the name of the Australian Computer Equipment Suppliers Association. I ask honourable members to note the word Australian. Our fledgling true Australian computer manufacturing industry is under constant attack. We as a government must seize every opportunity we can to assist our own innovators. For far too long the Australian computer industry has been dominated by foreign companies. We must support our own industry. The bounty is one way of caring for our own. The Bill extends for a short while the present bounty on ADP equipment. Therefore, I have much pleasure in commending it to the House. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(5.28) —Firstly, let me apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my failure to formally congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker last week. In the heat of various moments I overlooked that. I did not take too kindly to the remarks made by the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), when he suggested that the Government had procrastinated on the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which has been out for some time. The honourable member suggested that we had not made much advance on the report. The fact is that the honourable member showed an abysmal ignorance of his topic insofar as he did not recognise that the IAC report contains chalk and cheese at the same time. He attempted to make some sense of it but, to my mind, failed miserably. Typically computer software is considered, in most parts of Australia, not to be an industry but an occupation. Industry grants for the development of computer software are not applicable because they do not fit into the specified category. That has always seemed to me to be an irony. That situation is gradually changing. To link computers with typewriters and various other office machinery-this matter was dealt with by the IAC-is completely to ignore what is happening in the world and has been happening for a very long time. I suggest that part of the reason for the plight of the Australian industry at the moment, or the lack of Australian industry at the moment, is the incapacity of the previous Government to recognise that it could not put computers in with other equipment concepts. I share the concerns of those who have suggested that a tariff protected computer industry is potentially dangerous. I also share the concerns of those who say that there is no way in which industry in Australia can develop without some assistance. The question is: What form of assistance should governments offer computer industries to ensure that they are developed to their full capacity? It is not just a defence matter, as the honourable member for Burke ( Dr Theophanous) said regarding the importing of critical components and the supply of those at times of difficulty; it is more to do with the expectations of our own community. Let us face it. The sons or daughters of last generation's electricians are now electronics engineers. What do they do? They act as the salesmen or cleaners of somebody else's electronics. In other words the Australian education system and cultural society have produced people with the ability and the capacity to design and develop amongst the best in the world. What they are in fact doomed to do is to act as technicians or maintenance people for other people's equipment. That is one of the reasons why we have such an enormous amount of frustration and it is one of the reasons for the great disillusionment of education amongst the Australian young. If we do not progress along the continuum of technological development much more than the computer industry will be at stake. The fact is that the Government has a range of capacities available to it. In the very short 12 months we have been in government we have initiated a number of matters. The extension of grants from the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board to include computer software was perhaps the one that was most relevant to this field. But the legislation developed from the recommendation of the Espie Committee on High Technology and Financing concerning venture capital extensions and the development of the extensions of the Australian Industries Development Corporation both have enormous relevance for an industry that desperately needs a government not so much to prop it up but one that will at least understand what it is about. Clearly the last Government completely failed to understand what the computer industry needed, what climate it needed, what context it was needed in and what circumstances it should work in. It seems to me the previous Government had this rigid mentality of tariff or nothing and there were no in-betweens. One looks at government purchasing and asks: 'Why should not government purchasing be part of an industry policy?' One looks at defence industry offsets and asks why that should not be integrated. So we have tariffs, bounties, research, the AIDC, the Espie venture capital, government purchasing and offsets . When all of those are put together perhaps the kind of soup is created from which computer industries in Australia could generate. One could perhaps call it an electronic soup. I think soup is the in-word these days for describing the generating of new things or for creativity. But certainly the soup in Australia has been pretty sterile in the past. I am particularly interested in the comments of the Australian Computer Equipment Suppliers Association because the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) could have gone perhaps further and suggested that amongst those suppliers there is not one company with Australian ownership. In fact all the companies that are involved in that organisation-certainly all of the members of the board are foreign-are completely foreign-owned. So they have a particular interest. If they consider that the Government may not be worth supplying I suggest that the sense of priorities that those companies may have perhaps needs a bit of rethinking. Some people have taken the view that the software industry is one that is capable of major development in Australia. My experience leads me to question that view seriously-certainly in the capacity to service the local market. The Australian market is not and never will be big enough for any serious industry, so one has to look at the export market. In my view there is a very limited capacity for export in the software field unless it is in conjunction with a major mainstream manufacturer. It seems to me there would be no reason whatsoever why any one of the seven sisters-I am sorry, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs-could not develop systems in Australia to a significant degree. Australia has the capacity for printed circuitry. We have, without a doubt, the capacity for design and peripheral development. We have high machinery skills and high technical skills. So there is no reason whatsoever why that should not happen. There is also no reason why the Government should not in fact insist that the machines a government purchases should not be to some degree developed here but also that companies should have some access to the Asian and other non- Australian markets. In areas such as communications-with Telecom Australia-we make an awful lot of products in Australia but most of those are made in conjunction with overseas manufacturers and the marketing rights outside Australia are not available to the Australian product. It is absolutely ludicrous that we allow, with the intention and the explicit purpose of developing Australian production, the development of products whose owners will not allow those products to be sold outside Australia because they run into competition with the parent company from either Europe or America. That is what it is about. Now the first breakthrough on this matter has occurred in the last six months, which of course is the development of the personal computer from IBM Australia Ltd which will in fact be supplying the Australian market and the English- speaking section of the Asian market. That is the first good sign for the Australian industry in my lifetime, and I think certainly in the lifetime of the computers, that companies may be coming to terms with the fact that we will not be accepting a continual and complete import situation. There is an expectation that if our money is good enough for company profits their products are good enough to be sold out of Australia. The significance of the potential in that area is major. In my view there are as many jobs in the development, production, designing, servicing and installation of computers outside and within Australia for the Australian industry as would be lost by those industries that are impacted by computers. In so many cases the jobs are very similar. In fact the clerk at the bank who may be displaced in the foreseeable future by automatic tellers could well work for a computer company which makes automatic tellers. The fact is that there are not many salesmen or service men, but there are an awful lot of service personnel in a manufacturing establishment. Those service personnel we do not get. All we get are those at the tail end of the systems. I suggest that the organisations which are concerned about technological change should be more concerned about what happens here because in a significant number of cases it is the same section of the work force that would be employed. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government has before it a very serious problem. We have an Industries Assistance Commission report which, in my view, does not address the real issue and does not display the kind of imagination or the kind of creativity that we need in this country to allow this industry to generate. In fact we have a series of government initiatives which have been aimed in the last 12 months and are still aimed at attempting to engender and generate new industries in the technological area. The extension of the bounty until May is in fact to buy breathing space but I think more so it is to allow the Government to look outside the IAC report to get the feeling as to what the Espie venture capital developments will generate in certain areas, to get a fair idea as to where the AIDC can in fact take itself given its massive increase in its capital capacity and in its charter, to get a fair idea as to where AIRDIB is taking us, and to see whether, out of that soup, we can start to perceive prototype developing, prototype models of where and how this country can start to become respectable in this world. Let us face it, over the next 10 years the determinant of what a developing country is will be those countries that lack a capacity to design and develop their own computer technology. The Third World countries will be earmarked not by their cost of living or the kind of diet they have but by their technological capacity. Those which cannot produce computers will be seen as being backwards. Those which can will be seen as being developed and civilised, if that is the appropriate word, which I doubt. The other aspect that I think has been important in the Australian scene is the recognition by organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and some of our universities which, with very little encouragement, in my view, have started to develop special purpose chip designs. That in itself is absolute proof of Australian capacity, intellectually and in design and skill terms. We can compete in specialised ways but we need, as a government and as a country, to see the whole of Asia as our market, not just Australia. We need to ensure that foreign manufacturers see us as being part of the Asian market and as a logical place to manufacture in conjunction with Australian companies and in many cases with government agencies. I do not relish our task. I do not doubt that in the next 12 to 18 months we will not find the complete solution, but I am absolutely confident that for the first time in our history the current Government is at least pointing us in the right direction and it is at least working with the right ingredients. The balance of those ingredients will be very hard to achieve, but if any government can achieve it, this one can. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.40) —This debate on the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill has developed into a general debate on technology and finance, and I welcome that. At the outset I wish to respond to some comments made by the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who is sitting opposite me now, when he spoke about the management investment company legislation which was passed in this House late last year. I remind him and I remind the House that that legislation arose out of the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee, which was in fact commissioned by the previous Government. The previous Government should have been given credit for that. I also remind the honourable member for Burke, who is attempting to interject, that he called for people to come forward and apply for management investment company licences under that legislation. He urged those listening to the debate and those making business decisions to look at the opportunities under that legislation. That is all very well, but I remind him that the Government has not yet introduced into this House the accompanying tax legislation which is needed for those people to take advantage of that management investment company legislation. The prudent investor, the prudent businessman or businesswoman, is unable to make that decision concerning venture capital in these new growth areas because the tax legislation is not available. If people make the investment decision that the honourable member for Burke is pleading for them to come forward and apply for, there is no certainty of what the tax law will be. The prudent manager cannot make a decision on management investment company licences. There is a great chance that in this financial year very few investors in the new technologies, in the computer area, in the information area, will be able to take advantage of that legislation. I remind the honourable member of that. There are great opportunities in the computer age. We are in the computer age, the information age, the technology age. We have had an excellent debate in the House today. As the shadow spokesman for small business I wish to contribute and say that small business has great opportunities to take advantage of the technology that exists. In fact, it is the age for small business. The computer generation that we are talking about today in this Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill provides great opportunities for small business because technology favours the small firm. With the development of computer hardware the size of the unit becomes smaller day by day. With the development of software there are more programs, alternatives, options and uses for business , which gives small business the opportunity to catch up with big business. In fact small business will have the opportunity to take over from larger business because, as the price of computers comes down daily and there are developments in microelectronics, the nature and place of the firm will change. With the advantage of computers it may not be necessary to locate one's business in a large city or suburban area. This may provide opportunity for the regeneration of many rural regional cities and towns in Australia. One can have a computer in the town. It can be plugged in, through the telephone network, to information systems anywhere in Australia and, indeed, anywhere around the world . That is one of the great benefits for Australia of the information revolution and the computer revolution. I believe the Australian entrepreneur can do that, if given the opportunity. I say again to the honourable member for Burke and to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who assists the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) that I hope we will see shortly tax legislation to accompany the management investment corporation legislation that was passed previously. Mr John Brown —You will; do not worry. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister has said that we will and we welcome that. I welcome the Minister's entry into the debate. I ask him: Will we see the legislation this week? As the spokesman in this House for small business maybe he will tell us later why the Government has not yet implemented its promises for small business. Why has the Hawke Government not implemented, as it promised to do immediately upon election, a small business action program? Why has it not fulfilled any of its taxation promises to small business that would enable small businesses to benefit from the management investment company legislation that the Government is talking about? I ask the Minister why the Government has not implemented its promise to companies to change and extend the time for payment of sales taxes? Why did the Government not implement in the last Budget its promise to business to increase the retention allowance? All these tax measures I have referred to were promised by the Government. They would give business an opportunity to take advantage of the new computer technologies that we have talked about today. We have heard honourable member after honourable member on the Government side talk about them, but they have not mentioned the incentives they promised to small business at the time of the election and which have not been fulfilled. I have mentioned the technology side of the argument and I have referred to the management investment companies and the need for accompanying tax legislation. We have talked about technology. But technology alone, the entrepreneurial spirit alone, the investment decision alone will not give us these new industries. There are great opportunities for Australia but we have to have the finance. We need the availability of both capital venture, equity and loan finance to the businessman or woman to take advantage of these opportunities. Small and medium sized businesses have been discriminated against by the financial system in Australia. The Government ought to act and introduce foreign banks into Australia forthwith. If it is serious-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member for Higgins please be relevant to the Bill before the House? Mr SHIPTON —I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But, on a point of order , can I say that this has been a wide ranging debate-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I was asking the honourable member to be relevant to the Bill before the House. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believed I was. It has been a wide ranging debate. Speeches by members on the Government side ranged to the management investment companies legislation and other legislation necessary to implement the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill. I was arguing, by way of analogy, that if one is to take advantage of the management investment company legislation the availability of finance to corporations to invest in the computer hardware and software areas is indeed relevant. That is the point I was making. I was trying to be useful and helpful. I obviously struck some sensitivity and I will abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election. Mr John Brown —That will not do you any good. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister interjects again. When he winds up debate on this Bill I want him to tell us when he will introduce the tax legislation that he promised that goes with the management investment company legislation. I also want him to tell us when he will fulfil his promises to small business. I am pleased to support the Opposition's position on this Bill and to speak in favour of small business. I will bring my comments to a conclusion by asking the Minister when he will respond to the Opposition's call to designate this year, l984, as the year of small business in Australia. It is the year of small business. There are great opportunities for small business. There are opportunities in the computer area. Dr Theophanous —What did you do for small business? Mr SHIPTON —What did we do? We extended the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. We should be given credit for that. We extended the retention of profits to 80 per cent from 40 per cent in our term of office. That is what we did. Government members ought to take note of it and give the previous Government credit for it. I am pleased to support the Opposition in this matter. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.49) —in reply-I am pleased to wind up the debate on this very important Bill, the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill. Speakers, particularly on the Government side, have pointed out that this Bill in fact carries on the bounty available for the production of automatic data processing equipment in Australia until such time as the Government responds to the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on long term assistance to that industry. The debate has pretty well summed up the attitude of this side of the House vis -a-vis that of the former Government. It has been said that the former Government sat around like the bunyip aristocracy for 31 of the last 34 years-it sat in the wool shed waiting for cardigans to come back into fashion. I guess that pretty well sums up the sterility of imagination and the aridness of the policies that were pursued over the period and which led us to the age of darkness and despair. What a pleasure and what an advantage it was to the Australian community when one year ago yesterday a new government emerged to drag this country into the twentieth century. This Government is cognisant of the imagination and technical expertise which exists within Australia to produce high technology industries in which we are particularly skilled. The shadow Minister for small business, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), waltzed in here and gave us five minutes of frothy nonsense. Compare that with the three speakers on the Government side; there could have been six if the Opposition could have matched them, but the Opposition could not find anybody on its benches with enough imagination to talk on this Bill. One should have listened very carefully to what our speakers had to say. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) pointed out exactly what happened in the 1950s and the 1960s when the now Opposition ruled this country. Under that Government, any opportunities for an Australian company with imagination and technological know how to advance its prospects were nil. The honourable member for Flinders ( Mr Chynoweth) was able to point out that in his case he showed exactly what skills were available in Australia. He was an entrepreneur who started at home and scaled the heights of computer technology that was unknown to the previous Government in all those years of ruling this country and turning us back with an introspective view about Australian industry. Finally, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) put a very practical viewpoint as to how this industry could be fostered by a government with imagination. I am pleased to say that all these statements were not made in the area of fantasy or imagination. In fact, this Government has done something about it. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in the Senate responds to the IAC report honourable members will see even more examples of how this country is moving into the twentieth century and a technological revolution of its own. On that point, I think it is relevant to point to the purchasing policy that this Government introduced. It will allow the fledgling computer and technological industries in Australia to find new life. One of the tenets of that purchasing policy is to give companies in Australia the opportunity to plan ahead by giving them at least three years knowledge of the likely government requirements in the automatic data processing area. Mr Shipton —When are you going to introduce the tax legislation for MICs? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will come to the honourable member in a moment. I will get to his puerile contribution when I am finished with the intelligent contributions of the Government members. When this purchasing policy is finalised, one will see exactly how we propose to foster the fledgling computer industry in Australia by giving it an opportunity to understand what the government's requirements are likely to be in the future. It will allow the industry to tool up, invest and take advantage of the opportunities this Government will provide as we move into the technological age that has so long eluded us. I come now to the puerile contribution of the honourable member for Hotham who waltzed in here with his usual sprouting nonsense about small business and told us how small business was a great user of technology. Certainly when the previous Government was in power, technology had great relevance. Mr Ruddock —That is reflecting very unfairly on the honourable member for Hotham who is not in the chamber. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Dundas will please observe the Chair. Mr Ruddock —I am only trying to protect the honourable member for Hotham. He is not even in the chamber and has not participated in the debate. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), or whatever his electorate is-it is pretty forgettable, whatever it is-told us how small businesses relied on technology. They certainly relied on it during his time in government. His Government had to employ a bank of computers to compute the bankruptcies that occurred in the small business area. The highest number of bankruptcies in the nation's history occurred during the previous Government's period of office. Small business was all but decimated during that time, yet the honourable member asks about management investment companies. He has challenged me to let him know what is happening with the legislation for MICs. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has in fact spelt out quite clearly the guidelines that will be required for investors in MICs. Mr Shipton —A very brief statement on 23 January. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Higgins to restrain himself. He has asked for information from the Minister. The Minister is being courteous enough to respond. The honourable member for Higgins could be courteous enough to listen. Mr JOHN BROWN —We listened in stunned silence to the ravings and rantings of the honourable member. I will tell the honourable member the position. The Treasurer has announced the details of the tax arrangements for investors in MICs. Within a fortnight the draft legislation will be introduced. It will cover exactly the question the honourable member asked. The honourable member talked about what this Government has or has not done for small business. I will tell him what we have done. This Government has restored hope, optimism and prosperity to business in Australia. The big winners are small businesses which now, for the first time in the last eight years, are seeing some prosperity. Prosperity is being restored, profitability is going up, and employment opportunities are being restored to the small business sector that saw nothing but dismal failure and bankruptcies in ever increasing numbers during the Opposition's period in government. I say that as somebody who has been practically involved in the small business area, which is more than can be said for almost every member of the present Opposition, despite their claims to be the economic managers of this country. The debate we have had in this House from the Government side attested to the fact that we have imagination, intelligence, and an understanding of the fact that this is 1984 and that we are in a new technological age. The days of the bunyip aristocracy are finished, hopefully never to be restored. That was fully exemplified in the debate with the three intelligent contributions from this side of the House. They displayed imagination and knowledge and compared with the arid statements and empty rantings of those on the Opposition side. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(5.58) —The Opposition does not oppose the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. It seems to us to be a reasonable attempt to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the Australian Wool Corporation and the Wool Research Trust Fund. Having acknowledged this, I must also point out that the narrowness of this Bill is rather disappointing. The legislation falls far short of focusing on other issues of concern to the wool industry today and, in particular, does nothing to redress the Government's broken election promises, promises that wool growers and everyone else in the wool industry were entitled to believe when they went to the polls a year ago. I will have more to say about that in a moment. The Opposition is glad that in this amendment to the Wool Industry Act the Government has recognised the desirability of the Australian Wool Corporation being permitted to stretch its wings and to borrow funds such as issue discount bills and promissory notes. We are glad too that there will soon be a broader range of investment options available to the Wool Research Trust Fund, although it would have been better if the Government had acted to place the fund under the control of the Wool Corporation. The Opposition, for its part, would like to see many more statutory authorities given the opportunity to become more commercially oriented and less dependent upon ministerial direction. Clause 26 of the Bill enables the Corporation, with the approval of the Minister, to do certain things. I often wonder why unfortunately in legislation arrangements we sometimes put fetters on the operation of a corporation. We know that in most instances Ministers are very busy people. Sometimes there is a need for quick decisions and approvals which cannot be readily given, and the industry suffers. I would have hoped that instead of that type of clause being written into the legislation the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) could have established guidelines by which the Corporation could have acted and that only on very special occasions would it have been necessary to seek the approval of the Minister. I noticed in the previous debate a certain sensitivity on the part of Government members and Ministers when my colleague the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) raised the matter of overseas banks coming to Australia. I thought he raised a very pertinent question. I think it is appropriate for me to seek an assurance from the Minister that if under clause 26 of the Bill a corporation requests his approval-I have already indicated my concern about corporations having to seek approval of Ministers in all circumstances-to get a loan from an overseas bank, which hopefully will have been allowed to operate in Australia, that that approval will be given. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know of the sensitivity in your Caucus in regard to this matter, but I am raising this question because it is very pertinent to this Bill, which states that the approval of the Minister must be sought if the Corporation wishes to borrow certain moneys. I want him to reply and tell us whether approval would be granted if the Corporation in its wisdom seeks approval to borrow from overseas banks because of the terms and conditions they offer. This is not a hypothetical proposition because we were going to issue banking licences to overseas banks. We believe that authorities such as the Wool Corporation should have their commercial functions separated from any other activities required by the statutes. After all, they are commercial undertakings. Nevertheless, this legislation recognises that previous restrictions on the Wool Corporation's ability to borrow effectively limited it to term loans or bank overdrafts which were often considerably more expensive than any available alternative. Problems associated with the Corporation's ability to borrow came to light last year when it was required to seek funds domestically to finance its market support activities. I know that you will recall what I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have always been impressed by your wide knowledge of the activities of Parliament, and unlike some of your colleagues you have shown an interest in rural matters, which is good. I hope that some of the infectious enthusiasm which people like you show for the real producers, the fair dinkum Australians, the rural people, will rub off on some of the honourable members opposite with whom you sit. I compliment you on the breadth of vision which you almost singularly amongst the people who sit with you seem to display in this Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall the combination of the poor demand for wool and a strong Australian dollar threatened the Corporation's reserves and caused it to draw down a $40m line of credit with the Chase Manhattan Bank and to finalise a $75m tender with the National Australia Bank. I know that you are aware of those difficulties, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to repeat them here so that your colleagues on the other side of the House would also be cognisant of them. I think that few people realise the tremendous contribution the Australian Wool Corporation makes to ensuring that a fair and reasonable price is obtained for wool products in Australia. Only last week my colleague and Leader of my Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who is one of the most distinguished parliamentarians in Australia, was very proud when he found out-and this is indicative of his concern for, his interest in and his knowledge of what goes on in his electorate-that a constituent of his got a world record price for wool, 1,000c a kilogram. It is interesting to note, and I am not an insular Queenslander, that that wool was sold at Brisbane. One can understand how a very keen local member like the right honourable member for New England was very thrilled that one of his constituents had established that world record . The reserve price scheme operates in two ways. It seeks to allow the Australian Wool Corporation to purchase wool when it is down around the reserve price. On any given day when the market price for wool is above a certain percentage, even though it is well above the reserve price, the Corporation will step in to purchase wool. It does this because it will not stand idly by and see the market distorted. It certainly would not allow a ring of bias to operate which would threaten what wool is worth on the market. I have had many discussions with the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), the honourable member for Maranoa ( Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). They are all practical farmers and tillers of soil. They are aware of the enormous benefit which the Australian Wool Corporation, in its sensitive approach to the administration of the reserve market price scheme, brings to the wool producers of Australia. I think it is appropriate in debates like this to take time off to indicate words of praise for people who serve on our statutory authorities. The Australian Wool Corporation is well led by David Asimus, and I pay tribute to the Minister for the confidence he has displayed in him. I praise also people who offer their services in a managerial capacity, people such as Dr Arthur Farnworth. He is a great Australian, a man dedicated to the service of the Australian wool industry. I think he is a scientist at heart, but he is playing a notable and significant role in the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation. Such people perform their role because of a variety of factors. There was some concern that the wool stockpile had reached 21.5 million bales, but because the Corporation had established a wonderful reputation in the borrowing markets it was able to overcome any threatened difficulty. It is obvious that the new powers conferred by this legislation will help to avoid such a situation in future. This is good because there is no sense whatever in the Wool Corporation or any other statutory authority having to liquidate longer term and high yielding investments to meet short term requirements as a result of or inability to obtain money at a suitable rate. When emergencies which the Corporation has been unable to foresee or to plan for have occurred, it has not been able to obtain additional finance at short notice. I turn briefly to the question of the Government's long term commitment, or what many people more specifically and accurately believe to be a lack of commitment to the wider development of the Australian wool industry. I draw attention to the long title of this Bill, 'An Act to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972'. I intend to take advantage of that long title. Honourable members may recall that during a previous debate in this Parliament the Minister present seemed either to get a bad attack of nervous dyslexia, or the jitters, when I began to talk over a wider range. He challenged my authority because he was frightened that I would expose his lack of administrative ability and concern for the industry. The then Deputy Speaker, the Honourable Les Johnson, who has now gone to greener and fresher pastures, agreed with the Minister's point of view. However, although I am a rather gentle soul, as honourable members realise , I challenged the ruling and the Clerks agreed with my immaculate logic. The Deputy Speaker had to withdraw and indicate that I would be allowed to continue. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just give you that advice because although I know you have had a lot of experience you could be challenged and I would hate to put you in the embarrassing situation of being tempted, as was that Deputy Speaker, to rule against me and then be obliged to withdraw. I am far too much of a gentleman to try to embarrass you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest that the honourable member move on with his remarks on the Bill and let us deal with that situation when we get to it. Mr McVEIGH —During the last election campaign the Australian Labor Party made many premature promises to the wool industry and, indeed, to the entire rural sector. Unfortunately, not too many of those promises have been kept. For example, honourable members will recall that the ALP went down to the Riverina believing that it would unseat one who was probably the hardest working and most highly regarded member of this Parliament, in the person of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks). It said categorically 'We are going to allocate $28m for wool promotion in the 1983-84 financial year.' I happened to be down in Riverina at the time and was amazed at the complacency of the honourable member for Riverina, who said: 'Tom, I take no notice of that. Promises, as was said in an American election campaign many years ago, are like a heap of dead mullet; they both glisten and smell.' The honourable member was quite right. He knew, as I did, that once the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry and his party got into office things would change. What have we found? The wool industry, instead of receiving the $28m that it was expecting, has been dumped, has been shoulder charged by the Labor Party. All it got was $20m. Mr O'Keefe —Shame! Mr McVEIGH —I can understand the outrage of the honourable member for Paterson. The Minister for Primary Industry should be ashamed of himself for promising something and not being able to deliver. Mr McGauran —He is laughing at the moment. Mr McVEIGH —A failed Minister can always laugh. It hides his embarrassment. He knows full well that his Government has broken a solemn election promise. He knows just how unhappy is the wool industry about this because, frankly, being rather blunt people, they told him. The wool industry has pleaded with the Minister to honour his original pre-election commitment, but it is no good talking about Labor's promises to this Minister because he cannot get anything through Cabinet. Except for this short Bill, which I have indicated we do not oppose, the Minister has done nothing for wool growers in his first year in office. It is quite interesting to note that, with all the hullabaloo of the last two days, no one has asked him what he has achieved in the last 12 months. He would have had to answer nothing. Wool producers are fast realising that the Minister just does not deliver the goods because he is a weak performer within both Cabinet and the Caucus. He has been rolled time and time again on vital issues of great concern to wool growers and other primary producers. The abandonment of his Government's promise to the industry on wool promotion was just one example of his lack of strength; there are of course others. Before the election Labor said that it recognised 'the urgent need for changes in the way promotion is funded so that a guaranteed real level of funding is available on a continuous basis'. Does this mean that instead of its professed concern for the wool industry, as expressed in this Bill tonight, Labor expects the industry in future to meet a greater share of the promotion and research bill, so that the Government's contribution can be progressively slashed? I want the Minister to answer that question and to give us an assurance concerning what his party and government intend to do. The Government has never at any stage in the last 12 months answered that question and I challenge the Minister to do so immediately. It is just not good enough for the Government to come into this House with a piece of legislation such as this, satisfactory as it is so far as it goes, and pretend that it is constantly working to further the interests of the wool industry. Australian wool growers need to know where they stand from year to year and have a right to expect that any promises the Government sees fit to make will be kept and not cynically discarded the moment the election is over. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(6.15) —Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is the first opportunity that I have had since your election to the office of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, I congratulate you both as a friend in the Party and as a fellow parliamentarian. I am sure that as the months go by many honourable members will come to accept that your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker has certainly been a justified recognition of your ability in your previous role as a Deputy Chairman. Some of the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), are somewhat intriguing to say the least. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting the Government on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill but I must say that I much preferred the honourable member's contribution last Thursday evening on the Sex Discrimination Bill. That was a very reasoned and logical speech and I certainly congratulate him upon it much more than I do upon his efforts today. I turn to some of his comments with respect to the reserve price scheme. They are interesting in view of the constant bleating we hear from members of the National Party of Australia about so-called, alleged socialism. It would certainly appear that, as far as the members of the National Party are concerned , they live up to their title of agrarian socialists. They are certainly socialists when it suits them and I suppose the contribution of the honourable member for Darling Downs on the operation of the reserve price scheme would support that comment. It is absolutely intriguing to hear yet another member of the Opposition get up and constantly bag this Government in regard to broken promises. I can quote the comments made by the honourable member for Darling Downs in respect of the promise made by the then Shadow Minister, now our very fine Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), during the 1983 election campaign . Certainly no one denies that a commitment was made to increase substantially the funds available for wool promotion. It was a reasonable promise to make, given that the contribution by the previous government had been quite the reverse. It slashed the funds made available for wool promotion. The primary producers of this nation condemned that decision in the same way as they condemned the Government on 5 March 1983. Time and time again honourable members opposite talk about alleged broken promises, yet those promises were made in the context of what we thought was fair and reliable information concerning a projected deficit in 1983-84 of $6 billion. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has pointed out time and time again in the Parliament, on coming to office we found that the deficit had blown out to nearly $10 billion. The National Party again claims to represent the rural producers of Australia. I point out to honourable members that they should read a recent edition of the National Farmer to see what the rural producers of Australia thought of that party when comparing the efforts of the present Minister for Primary Industry and those of the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs. I am sure, having read that article, that they would be fairly enlightened and would not be making some of the interjections that are being made around the chamber. It is not my intention to stand up during this debate and criticise the National Party of Australia. My primary purpose in entering this debate is to support the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984 that is currently before the House . I think we all recognise that the importance of a strong, vibrant rural sector can never be too strongly emphasised. I realise that in such a debate it is rare to see too many of our city-based parliamentarians in the chamber. But I guess the events of the last five years and the drought with all its ramifications and hardship to the rural community at least have one compensatory effect, and that is that the droughts we have from time to time bring about an awareness of the very close interrelationships that exist beteween country and city interests in Australia. Unfortunately, that perception somewhat fades after a while and people who happen to live in the city automatically assume that once it starts to rain all the problems of the rural sector are solved. I guess that all of us from both sides of the chamber recognise that there is tremendous rural indebtedness in Australia because of the disastrous effects of the drought of the last five years. But at least there is a recognition by people living in the cities that there is a very close interrelationship between city and country interests. Following the cessation of more than four or five years of drought in eastern Australia last year, it should be obvious to all members of this House that primary industry still represents the basis of our national wealth. Indeed, nearly half of our export earnings come from rural producers, and we should never lose sight of that fact. In other words, if our rural economy is in recession, in many respects so too is the total national economy. Thankfully, then, relative to the events of the past four years, this is no longer the case. In introducing the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984, the Minister for Primary Industry succinctly outlined the broad purposes of the Bill. Essentially, all honourable members would be aware that the Bill seeks to amend the Wool Industry Act of 1972 and so widen the scope of the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation. Specifically, the Bill is designed to amend sections 26 and 72 of this Act. The amendment to section 26 seeks to broaden the Corporation's power to make it clear that the Corporation does in fact have the power to deal in securities either domestically or overseas. At present there is some doubt as to whether the present provisions allow the Corporation to borrow by raising securities. Consequently, it is desirable to amend this Act to remove any doubt about these powers of the Corporation. The Corporation needs this position clarified so that it is able to act in a way commensurate with the objectives in the 1972 Act. Proposed new sub-section 26(5)(a) will empower the Treasurer to give a contractual guarantee for borrowings other than dealings with securities-that is , a guarantee that is specific to a particular lender. Proposed new sub-section 26(6) provides that the Treasurer may determine a statutory guarantee for the Corporation's dealings with securities. The intention of proposed new sub- section 26(5)(b) is to remedy the situation peculiar to some types of securities , in particular debentures, by providing for contractual guarantees for such securities. Section 72 is to be repealed so that investment of moneys from the Wool Research Trust Fund will in future be subject to the Audit Act and thus provide greater scope for investment for the Trust Fund moneys. Overall, these amendments are largely machinery amendments designed to improve the operation of the Wool Industry Act. They will also improve considerably the flexibility of the Australian Wool Corporation's financial arrangements. Consequently, there is likely to be a more profitable application of wool grower funds. To this extent, all sectors of the Australian wool industry should welcome these initiatives. At this point of the debate I would like to make, if members on the other side will allow me, some other comments with respect to a very important issue that is causing some concern and that is the issue of brokers operating at the Yennora wool complex in Sydney. I understand that under the tenancy arrangements negotiated in the early 1970s and which are still binding, Sydney Wool Ltd has sole use of the wool storage, sample display and sale facilities at Yennora which is owned by the Australian Wool Corporation. Sydney Wool Ltd is a consortium of Dalgety Farmers and Elders IXL Ltd. As most honourable members would be aware, the recent consolidation and amalgamation of rural firms has unfortunately brought about a situation in which access to Yennora by some small firms is now very very difficult. I have had a large number of representations from small brokers that have experienced difficulty in obtaining access to Yennora. I have no doubt that other honourable members from both sides of the chamber have also had similar representations. I understand that the tenancy arrangements pre-date the establishment of the Wool Corporation and arose from negotiations made by the former Australian Wool Board in the very different circumstances of the early 1970s. At that time it was a matter of particular concern that one or more of the broking firms then in independent existence might not fall into line with the remainder in centralising activities at the prospective Yennora centre. The tenancy arrangements involve pegged rents of about $6 per square metre, a figure which would be about $18 or more if fixed on the basis of current market rates. In more recent times, brokers not affiliated with the incumbent brokers at Yennora have sought access to these facilities. PRIMAC, a small broking firm which traditionally has operated on the Brisbane market, is looking to expand its business into New South Wales and sees access to the Yennora facilities as important to its expansion plans. Jemalong Wool, a firm established in 1980 and based at Forbes in New South Wales, is also seeking access to the Yennora site. There has certainly been a great deal of publicity in recent days about both the attempts of Jemalong Wool and PRIMAC to gain access to that site. The question of formal renegotiation of the lease has been fully examined and it is clear that the Sydney Wool Ltd consortium cannot be compelled to accept any changed arrangements. However, I understand the Wool Corporation has been using its good offices to achieve an amicable solution to the problem in the interests of common sense and the best interests of the industry. The Minister for Primary Industry recently provided me with this information and I certainly thank him for that advice. In the same letter that he provided to me on 5 March the Minister made these comments: I understand that the Sydney Wool Ltd consortium earlier this week extended an offer of membership to PRIMAC and Jemalong Wool which would extend to these firms access to the Yennora facilities. I do not as yet have the full details of this offer and it remains to be seen whether PRIMAC and Jemalong Wool will consider that the terms and conditions proposed provide an equitable solution to the matter. This is essentially a commercial matter and there is very limited scope for Government involvement. Given that the parties directly involved appear to be making progress, I am not contemplating any personal intervention at this time. It is a very difficult matter, as the Minister has pointed out in his letter but , like the Minister, I certainly hope that common sense will prevail. In conclusion, I return to the Bill. It is regrettable that up till now the Corporation's borrowing capacity has been unnecessarily restricted to traditional areas of finance. This restriction has disadvantaged the Corporation and in turn costs are borne by our nation's wool growers. In recent months this situation has placed enormous demands on the Market Support Fund-a situation which could not go on indefinitely. Last year the Government lifted the overseas borrowing restraints on the Australian Wheat Board-a move greatly applauded by the wheat industry. I believe this action will also be warmly welcomed by the wool industry. In many geographic regions of Australia wool production and wheat growing are complementary activities. This amendment recognises the complementary nature of two great primary industries in Australia. In congratulating the Minister on his decision to develop these amendments, I commend the Bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.00) —Prior to making some comments about the Wool Industry Amendment Bill I take the opportunity to comment on some of the words of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who took the opportunity, quite rightly-I congratulate him on it-to spread his remarks a little widely in the arena of the wool industry. He raised issues relating to the wool stores, where there appear to be some problems of interest to him. Nevertheless, I was a bit surprised to hear him comment on projected deficits again today. I thought we had put that matter to rest. Mr Cunningham —No, we haven't. Mr TUCKEY —I am not concerned about it. I just thought we had put it to rest on the grounds that the Government would have realised by now that it is its responsibility to manage the Australian economy and that it is useless, now, to try to excuse itself for its own actions by referring to events of l2 months ago . I am also a little surprised about the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tells the Australian public that one Malcolm Fraser deceived him. If he was foolish enough to be deceived by a man whom he chose to call a liar in this Parliament it says something for his intellect. Mr Kerin —An effective liar. Mr TUCKEY —The fact of life is that if Malcolm Fraser tricked him that is no recommendation for the Prime Minister because, after all, he projects himself to the general public as a man of great intellect. I wonder how long he will continue to tell us in this Parliament that he was tricked. Mr Kerin —What about the Liberal Party? Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry; I just think it is time that the Prime Minister stood up and started to take some responsibility for the difficulties of government. Mr O'Neil —Get on to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —If it is worrying the honourable member he should tell us it is worrying him. The thing is that these people continue to talk about deficit projections but do not believe that it is wise or proper to project another deficit. We have to look at what has been provided to the community which is so interested in this Wool Industry Amendment Bill. What the Government must talk about is the future, not the past, and the true interest of the Australian electorate. The Government should explain to rural producers why, for the first time in history, they are paying excise on distillate, the fuel that is used on their properties. The Government should explain also whether these people, who have assets, usually of huge capital value-although they offer them no return whatsoever because they do not want to sell them; they see them as family assets -will, in a very short time, be confronted with a capital gains tax and death duties. I will address myself briefly to the actions of the Government in introducing this worthwhile piece of legislation. In my view, the Australian Wool Corporation is one of the most highly professional statutory authorities in the arena of market intervention. There is a large number of them, as we know. The Wool Corporation is one of the latest to be introduced and, consequently, reflects a lot of thinking on the market and market intervention. I think we should look very closely at the method of operation of the Australian Wool Corporation. It has achieved the required affect of putting a floor in the market for producers and insulating them from the wild variations for which most agricultural products are noted when nobody is there to back up the system. At the same time we note that in other areas of market intervention we still have compulsory acquisition. It has always amazed me that, although I am well aware that my constituents support, most strongly, compulsory acquisition for, for instance, wheat, they have never been able to ask themselves: Why is a law needed to provide us with something that we believe we require to protect our interests. It is an interesting situation. In relation to wool marketing and the Australian Wool Corporation the intervention is in the market place. There is no compulsory acquisition by the Corporation. It has managed to provide the protection for the producer without compulsory acquisition. We should look at that because it has been successful and it is a good result. The Bill addresses itself to some needs for improving the efficiency of the Corporation. It will allow the Corporation to sell securities. It expands the role of the Corporation. Previously it could only borrow from approved banks or another lender. Clearly, in this day and age, the financial markets of Australia and of the world have changed. There was an absolute necessity for the Wool Corporation to be able to participate in them. I am advised that under present arrangements often the Corporation, having been able to lend money at very advantageous rates, and consequently reduce operating costs which are passed on to the farmer, has had to retrieve that money to fill very short term requirements when, in fact, there was an opportunity to borrow at lower interest rates than those foregone. The Government has quite correctly addressed that in this legislation. I congratulate it on that. In truth, although there is detail in this Bill, that is what the Bill is all about. The industry supports it and the Opposition support it. I am pleased to see the Government has taken this action. The wool industry is, in truth, the sheep industry. The sheep industry is equally reliant on the sale of stock and the turning of that stock into meat. I hope I too will be allowed to digress a little into a matter which is of great concern and about which I would like the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin ) to take note because it is not the first time I have raised this matter. A huge amount of sheep meat killed in Australia is sent to the Middle East. In the Middle East the requirement is for all of that meat to be killed by way of halal slaughtering. That has been practised in Australia for many years. People of the Moslem faith have provided the service. Unfortunately, recently a special interest group has established itself. It has recognised a great opportunity to make money and is starting to monopolise the procedures related to halal slaughter. No Islamic country will buy meat unless a certificate is provided stating the meat has been killed in the traditional manner. This is the most important procedure and has been carried on for many years. During the meat scandal abuses of this practice were identified. The previous Government quite rightly set out to rationalise that and it will be completed by this Government. The recommended process was to have a single Government certificate. The former Government set out to do that. Unfortunately, in the process, it was not made a certificate of the Commonwealth of Australia, which would clearly carry the reputation of the Commonwealth of Australia and would clearly impose upon importing countries and their governments real constraints as to whom they dictated should carry out particular functions in this country-that government would be obliged to accept that certificate provided it carried the imprimatur of the Australian Government. Unfortunately the Government slipped up because it has allowed each certificate to carry the name of the organisation or the individual who took responsibility for the halal slaughter. What has happened is that a group known as the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has, by political manoeuvring, cornered the market. When I say political manoeuvring, I do not mean within Australia; it has gone to the importing countries and used religious fanaticism or connections-I have some doubt as to whether there are not some financial arrangements involved-to get certain people to say that the people within that group are to be the chosen few . Consequently, we find that in Mudgee, and Queensland, certain Australians and certain Islamic persons have had to be dismissed. There are considerable industrial problems because the monopolists have moved in and people are getting pushed out. In Western Australia, a person at Rob's Jetty who has been supplying halal services for 25 years has been told by the Western Australian Meat Commission that his services are no longer required; it is not practical to have him in competition with AFIC because AFIC has the rights to certain markets such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, and as it is servicing those countries it might as well handle the others. Certain exporters now advise me that they do not need the AFIC certificate for other markets, and they are being charged an extra 50c a carcass in order to pay for the monopolists. Clearly, the Government has control over this situation. I know that the Export Inspection Service has written to the processors who are now complaining, and has said to them: 'It looks like AFIC has won the race; it has the business'. The Government should not accept that. It is quite contrary to the principles of Australia and it is certainly now costing exporters money because these people are charging more than anybody else. Clearly it is time for the Government to take AFIC's name off the certificate, replace it with the name of the Australian Government-we would not be ashamed of that-and consequently issue a certificate that everybody understands is to be the new regime. Then, let the Islamic people who conduct halal slaughtering compete for the services at the various abattoirs . They should not be able to manipulate the situation through religious arrangements to advantage themselves financially. I do not think that is what Australia is about and I do not think the Australian Government should condone it. Of course the loser is always the producer. The grower of wool whom the Government has set out to assist in this legislation is also the grower of sheep meat-we cannot have one without the other-and he is now being penalised because a particular religious group has gained an advantage. I am sincerely concerned about this problem. I mention it tonight because, as the Minister knows, I have raised it before and he was of the opinion at that time that he could address himself to it. The fact is that, very shortly, if a person does not join this religious group he will not be able to get a job in Australia as a halal slaughterer. I am amazed that Mr Curran, who is now talking of reimposing pickets down at Portland-- Mr Hand —So he should. Mr TUCKEY —I do not think the Australian Council of Trade Unions would agree with that. He is imposing pickets yet he is not protecting jobs from AFIC. Mr Kerin —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not mind the debate being wide ranging, because it is about the Wool Industry Act, but we have gone into Islamic culture and practices and now we are on to an industrial dispute. I think the honourable member has made his point. I have recorded them, and now I am wondering whether he could get back to the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I agree with the point of order. I did give the honourable member for Calare some indulgence earlier, and the honourable member for O'Connor sought the same indulgence. It has taught the Chair quite a lesson. Would the honourable member now come right back to the Bill? Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must explain to the Minister that the only reason I wanted to talk about the picketing at Portland was that I thought the union might better address itself to the problem you have kindly given me permission to raise. The Australian Wool Corporation relates, as I said , to the wool industry in general. We see that more freedom for the Wool Corporation is in the interests of the producers of wool and, consequently, we have every reason to support the Government in this move. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Minister for the opportunity to raise the other matter. It is a matter of interest to Australia and one which I hope we will see addressed very shortly. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.15) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to your high office. I believe, as the honourable member for Calare ( Mr Simmons) pointed out, that you will do an excellent job. Of course I am particularly happy because I supported you for the position, and also because compared with the Speaker you have youth on your side and I can see you going higher up the ladder. Before I refer to this constructive piece of legislation, the Wool Industry Amendment Bill, I want to say a couple of words about the contribution of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). After the usual diatribe from the honourable member-- Mr Simmons —That is fairly typical. Mr O'NEIL —As my colleague from Calare says, it is typical. After that usual diatribe from the honourable member for O'Connor, when he attacked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government, he finally got around to the fact that this is a worthwhile Bill and should be duly supported. A big problem for members of the Opposition is that around the country more and more graziers are saying that this Government is a friend of the man on the land. Of course that is quite correct. We on this side of the House are extremely fortunate to have such a progressive Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who does understand and care for the problems of the man on the land. I am extremely proud to be a part of this Government and I am extremely proud to be a member of the Government's primary industry committee, where I have a part in framing such constructive legislation. I am delighted to support this Bill to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972 to broaden the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation and, in particular, to expand the opportunities for investment of Wool Research Trust Fund monies. I have sought opinion from wool growers on this legislation and, without exception, the wool growers I have spoken to support this Bill wholeheartedly. There appears to be total support from all sectors of the wool industry, which I find very gratifying as I have a large number of wool growers in my huge electorate of Grey. I pay tribute to many of them for making me aware of some of the difficulties within their industry. The Government has agreed to amend sections 26 and 72 of the Wool Industry Act 1972. Briefly, section 26 is being amended to broaden the Australian Wool Corporation's borrowing powers to make it clear that the Corporation has the power to deal in securities either in Australia or overseas. Section 72 is being repealed so that investment of Wool Research Trust Fund moneys will in future be subject to the Audit Act, which will provide greater scope for investment of WRTF moneys. There is an urgent need to clarify and broaden the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation to overcome the restrictions that have hampered the Corporation's borrowing powers in the past. This Bill is being introduced at an appropriate time as the wool market continues to gather strength at auctions around the country, with wool prices moving to an all time high. This is particularly pleasing, for many farmers still are financially troubled after the disastrous 1979-83 drought. It is very heartening that, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, wool prices are expected to pass the previous record market indicator price of 483c a kilogram for clean wool and to climb to an average 520c. Wool sales in the first half of the 1983-84 season were worth $963m, 12.5 per cent higher than for the equivalent period in 1982-83, despite limited overseas buying. With wool prices already climbing and the stronger demand expected to continue, this is not only a tremendous boost to the wool industry across the board but also extremely beneficial to the Australian economy. Economic indicators appear to be right on target in forecasting the huge demand for Australian wool this year and I applaud the Australian Wool Corporation for its activity in promoting raw wool marketing and wool products both overseas and within Australia. The Australian Wool Corporation has been extremely active under its charter of basically promotion research marketing and administration and deserves to be commended on its initiatives, and this I gladly do. The People's Republic of China is of major importance to Australia in purchasing our wool and today is the third largest purchaser of our wool. Undoubtedly, our sales to that country will increase. I am extremely pleased that the proposed amendments in this Bill will improve the flexibility of AWC financial arrangements and should lead to more profitable application of wool grower funds. There are certainly many plusses for the wool industry in this legislation. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure in recommending and commending this Bill to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.21) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I also congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. The Wool Industry Amendment Bill seeks to allow the Australian Wool Corporation to broaden its ability to borrow funds, such as to issue discount bills and promissory notes. The present rules are restrictive and higher interest rate charges are often incurred; that is, those charges are incurred as a result of the restrictions which are currently imposed on the Australian Wool Corporation. Those higher charges are greater than might otherwise be the case. Following the changes to the Audit Act last year, it is necessary to change the legislation to allow research funds to be invested under these guidelines which offer wider choice of investment at the maximum available interest rate. Before dealing with this Bill and the problems confronting the wool industry, I wish to outline briefly the history of the Australian Wool Board, as it was then , now the Wool Corporation. I recall that in 1970 and earlier there was a serious slump in the wool market. The then Government received a report from the Wool Board in July 1970 and it asked Sir John Crawford to carry out an independent assessment of the Board's report and recommendations and to fill in the details of the proposals put forward by the Board. In September 1970 the coalition Government, as it was then, put to the wool industry the terms for the setting up of a new marketing authority. Those terms reflected Sir John's recommendations. In early October the industry accepted the Government's proposals and the Australian Wool Commission Bill was introduced into Parliament on 27 October. The first meeting of the Australian Wool Commission was held on 6 November. On 16 November the Commission began operating a reserve price system at wool auctions. The market picked up in response to the introduction of this system but fell again towards the end of the year. The Commission informed the Government that it intended to hold its reserve price and announced that it would be taking a stronger role in the market from the beginning of 1971. The Government made additional money available to allow the Commission to maintain this policy. So it can be clearly seen that the Wool Board, as it was then-the Wool Corporation as it is now-had its origin in 1970. Subsequently, in 1974, the then Australian Labor Party Government formalised the existing arrangements of what is now the Australian Wool Corporation. The Australian Wool Corporation endeavours to assist the wool industry in a number of areas. Some of those areas include marketing, the reduction of wool handling costs for the grower, research in relation to both wool production and wool use, and promotion. It is on this last point that I want to take issue with the Government. Wool promotion is an issue of major concern to the Australian wool industry at present. The industry's concern revolves around the Commonwealth's contribution to wool promotion. Australia's contributions to wool promotion go to the International Wool Secretariat which also receives funds from some of the other major wool growing nations. Despite this Labor Government 's promise to allocate $28m to the Australian industry, it allocated only $20m to wool promotion for this financial year; that is, $8m less than was promised by Labor during the election campaign. I ask the House and the Australian public: What credibility does this Government have? It has broken promise after promise. The industry is deeply concerned about the Labor Government's future commitment to assisting wool promotion. Labor has refused to make a clear and definitive statement on the future of government contributions to promotion. The wool industry has asked the Government to provide $1 for every $2 put in by growers. That would mean average government contributions of about $28m a year over the 1984-85 to 1988-89 triennium; in other words, an honouring of the election commitment. The previous coalition Government placed the funding of wool promotion on a three-yearly basis and the present 1983-84 financial year was the last year of the first triennium. Therefore, it is crucial for the industry to know just what Labor has in mind for the future. The Government's record of broken promises to rural industries has led growers to express justifiable concern about this Government's commitment to the wool industry. I ought to remind honourable members opposite, who seem to be completely ignorant on matters rural, that wool exports in 1982-83 were valued at just under $2,000m; that is, about 10 per cent of Australia's export earnings in a drought year. Ten per cent of Australia's export earnings in a drought year was from wool. The Government contributes around $250m to promotional assistance for manufacturing and service industries. It contributes around 4.2 per cent of the value of manufactured exports. However, as I have said, this Government's contribution is in breach of its pre-election undertaking. Its contribution to wool promotion is $20m, or one per cent of wool exports. The Government has withdrawn from its commitments at a crucial time for the wool industry. The industry is an efficient producer of a quality product. It deserves to be encouraged, but this Government is failing to do so. The industry is looking to increasing its sales in the rich United States of America market. It is a classic case of having to spend some money through promotion before the rewards will be earned. Those rewards will assist all Australians, not just wool growers. It ought to be borne in mind that whilst the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference suggested that wool had a bright future, real returns to growers are hardly above the depressed prices of 1930. An additional problem confronting the wool industry, like all other exporters, is the debilitating increase in input costs. Those costs are increasing faster than our overseas competitors with the result that our competitive position is being eroded. The blame for this situation rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It was he who gave away the benefits of the wages pause. It was he who gave way to the union bosses by granting full indexation and it is he who is responsible for the fact that our inflation rate in Australia is now starting to climb again, as indicated clearly by the December quarter consumer price index figure. As I said in this place last week, while our inflation rate last year was 8.6 per cent, the average of our trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was 3.6 per cent. So we are losing ground in the international competitive stakes and under this Government we will continue to do so. Given this situation I believe it is intolerable that this Government should further add to the wool industry's burden by failing to live up to its wool promotion funding promises. This Government has seriously jeopardised the wool industry's ability to maintain effective promotion on international textile markets. Unfortunately it is not only in the area of wool promotion where this Government has failed to live up to its promises. The Government has not only broken a number of other promises affecting woolgrowers and all others in the rural industries but it has also imposed new burdens. The Government has not lived up to its promise to ensure that the burden of economic sacrifice is shared by all. Instead it has slugged the rural sector for more, in my view, than any other sector of industry. Let me explain. The Australian Labor Party promised to maintain the income equalisation deposits scheme. Now as any farmer knows, the advantage of IEDs was that they provided an incentive to invest farm income in good years so that they could be withdrawn and used in bad years. The Government, despite its promise, has removed that incentive, thereby gutting the scheme of all its effectiveness. The result is that farmers are now less able to provide for their hard years and they are less able to stabilise their incomes. Labor promised to work towards an expanded carcass meat trade. How has it gone about doing that? As from 1 October last year it wants to increase meat inspection charges by 200 per cent. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Could I suggest that the honourable member return to the Bill. We have already been taken out of our way by a former speaker on the meat carcass trade. Mr PORTER —I am aware of that, Madam Chair, but as you probably know-if you do not I will help you-wool comes from sheep. Towards the end of their lives sheep go for slaughter. After slaughter the carcasses have to be sold and many of them go for export. This Government is damaging the wool industry by imposing increased inspection charges on abattoirs and so damaging the wool industry's ability to sell sheep. The plain facts of the matter are that the Government promised it would expand the carcass meat trade and it is doing its best to reduce it. The Government's word cannot be trusted. The Government gave a categoric promise in a number of other areas. With due respect to you, Madam Chair, I will not go into them but just mention them in passing. For example there was to be no tax on wine, but there was, of course. The matter of concern to all woolgrowers is the national soil conservation program which was promised by this Government in States such as New South Wales, where there is a serious soil conservation problem. That promise, I think, was regarded by woolgrowers and the rural industry generally as being a worthwhile promise. An amount of $4m was to be spent in the first year. How much has it given-$1m. But as I have said, this Labor Government has not only broken many promises, it has also imposed a number of new taxes or removed assistance which was previously granted to the rural community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I hope the honourable member is now returning to the Bill. Mr PORTER —I certainly am. I am dealing with woolgrowers and the concerns they have. Part of these changes, Madam Chair, are to the Wool Corporation, which is a very significant statutory body for all woolgrowers. The concerns that the wool industry has in relation to the increased charges which the Government is imposing upon it are reflected in many areas. The Government has reduced depreciation allowances. It has abolished the special depreciation allowances for petroleum storage. Another matter of real concern to woolgrowers and even more particularly to grain growers is the increase in the excise on diesel and petrol fuel. The excise was increased by 1.5c a litre and now it is indexing upwards. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have drawn the honourable member's attention to the fact that he is straying way away from the Bill before the House. In case it has slipped his mind we are discussing the Wool Industry Amendment Bill and I require him now to speak to the Bill. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Madam Chair. I shall come back to the Bill. The direct consequences of increased fuel charges for woolgrowers- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am asking the honourable member to return to the Bill under debate. The fuel charges are not under debate. They are not involved in this Bill. Will the honourable member please return to the Bill before the House? Mr PORTER —It is a great pity, they ought to be. The legislation provides that the Wool Corporation has greater flexibility in the borrowing of funds to meet the needs of the woolgrowers of this country. Unfortunately they have an added requirement now to borrow funds because of the failure of this Government to live up to its promises to provide assistance to the wool industry and other rural industries. I conclude on the concern that growers have about the broken promises by saying that the Prime Minister had the gall, after the introduction of the August Budget where, amongst other things, the reduction in the wool promotion was clearly identified, to say: We have been very careful not to impose any special burdens beyond what is being asked of the rest of the community on the rural sector. The facts make an absolute mockery of the Government's statements. Finally, I want to raise a concern of woolgrowers and undoubtedly the Wool Corporation, and that is the Government's move to remove or repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. All woolgrowers, especially those in South Australia, will recall the action taken by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to stop the live export of sheep from South Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I once again have to ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. I believe he is deliberately leaving the Chair out of this. The Bill is before the House. He has been asked several times to return to it. Mr PORTER —Madam Chair, I would have thought that the export of sheep was a matter particularly pertinent to the wool industry. The debate has been a wide ranging debate about the powers of the Wool Corporation. Is that not the case? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has strayed far beyond the contents of the Bill. I suggest we are now wasting his time; he does not have much time left. Mr PORTER —The Bill is called a Bill to amend the Wool Industry Act. One of the greatest concerns of the wool industry is not only the marketing of wool but also the sale, for example, of old wethers. In the past there has been difficulty in selling old wethers, but with the new livestock exports this trade has facilitated a great improvement for wool growers. This Government intends to repeal section 45D which was one of the most important remedies the Government had open to it to stop secondary boycotts. Those secondary boycotts were imposed by the AMIEU to prevent farmers and wool growers from exporting their sheep. I warn the Government that, if it proceeds with that line, it will face the wrath of the whole of the rural industry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, I suggest that the Chair gave some indulgence to speakers earlier and regrets it bitterly. It does not intend to give any further indulgence. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.41) —I do not think, even if I tried, that I could range as widely. It would be very hard to spend 20 minutes speaking on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. It is quite clear that it has the support of the industry and of the Opposition. It is a move in the right direction and I am sure that it will be universally welcomed. I wish to make a few remarks about the Australian Wool Corporation. (Quorum formed) I also wish to address a few remarks to the speech by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Those honourable members who were not here missed a speech of passion and intensity, spoken with all the authority of the lawyer that he is. I have a strong affinity with the Australian Wool Corporation. During the years of 1965 to 1970 I was growing wool on a drought stricken property-a property which in fact had nine inches of rain in those five years. In 1970 we had a fairly substantial wool clip which was put up for auction in Fremantle at the time that the voluntary pool, as it then existed, ran out of money. This was the extent of the support that Liberal-Country Party governments gave to the Australian wool industry. I remember very well lying in my bed at night, listening to the short wave radio and hearing luminaries such as the former member for Richmond talking about free enterprise and how it would not get involved in the market place. It really is a shame that people have such short memories and do not remember the travesty of support that we got from the Liberal-Country Party governments in those days.The wool I had was sold for less than 30c a kilo-way below the cost of production. For the honourable member for Barker to come in here today and talk about the margins in wool is really laughable. The fact is that all the great initiatives in this country that have been taken for the benefit of primary industry have been taken by Labor governments. It was a Labor government that stabilised wheat . It was a Labor government that underpinned wheat and made wheat farmers relatively prosperous. It was a Labor government that stabilised wool. It was a Labor government that opened up the massive markets of China. These things were done in the face of opposition from those honourable members opposite. When the honourable member for Barker threatens us with the wrath of the rural vote, he would do very well to read the rural newspapers which are showing quite clearly that it is the Australian Labor Party that is gaining support in the rural sector. Unfortunately, support for the Liberal Party of Australia is dropping dramatically. It is not quite so much the case with the National Party of Australia but then I have always been led to believe-this is supported by a lot of evidence-that those who support the National Party do so from the base of some congenital defect. That is certainly borne out by history. There is no doubt that the whole rural sector is under a cost price squeeze. Margins are falling throughout the industry, but it is true to say that the margins in wool today are probably better than they are in wheat production. One of the great initiatives that could be taken would to be to get some of the wheat producers back into wool production. One of the manifold benefits it would have would be to reduce the amount of wheat that we would have for sale. I feel quite sure that there will be downward pressure on wheat with the impending very large crops in the United States of America. It would certainly have some environmental and soil conservation advantage. If used in conjunction with the lupin wheat regime, it would lead to a reduction in fertilising costs. There is no doubt that those farmers who got out of the wool industry, often on the advice of the commercial banks, and went into continuous cropping, wall to wall cropping, will be the first ones to line up for the bankruptcy sales. It is a sad thing that many farmers will be in this position because of the very poor standard of advice given them by the commercial banking system. Mr Ronald Edwards —There was no leadership from the previous Government. Mr CAMPBELL —There was a total lack of leadership, as the honourable member for Stirling has very kindly and accurately pointed out. One of the things that the Labor Party has done for the wool industry is to free up the guidelines for the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. We have freed the Commonwealth Development Bank from Loan Council borrowings. We have broadened the terms under which it can lend money. My view is that we have gone nowhere near far enough and I would like to see much more money made available to the Bank to help restructure many wheat farmers back into wool production. I just touch on the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I do not intend to get into the halal slaughter meat business. I believe that the customer sets and determines the standards that he wants. If the honourable member for O'Connor is not prepared to live with that he really does not understand the free enterprise system which he purports to support. He lamented compulsory acquisition and said how good it was that the Australian Wool Corporation had been able to put a floor on the price of wool without recourse to compulsory acquisition. I am always amazed at the lack of understanding on that side of the House of how the economy works. One of the great faults of members opposite is that although they laud the free enterprise system they really do not understand how it works. The reason the Australian Wool Corporation is in a position to underpin the price of wool is so self- evident that I feel a little embarrassed telling the House. But since the honourable member for O'Connor clearly does not know I will tell him. The reason the Corporation can underpin wool prices is that Australia is a significant producer of wool. It is in a position to set prices, a position certainly not shared by the authorities in charge of wheat and some other commodities. Therefore, in such cases we have to rely on a compulsory acquisition scheme. That is understood by every farmer in this country, but apparently not by the honourable member for O'Connor. To raise the margins in wool production we need to look at things that can be done to increase wool productivity. Many things are happening now; I think they have happened too slowly in the past, probably because the wool industry has been hidebound by tradition. One of the great blights of the industry has been the traditional concept of the stud. (Quorum formed) I was not going to mention this matter, but I think it is very pertinent to the wool industry, in fact to farmers generally. Given the somewhat childish behaviour of the honourable member for O'Connor, I think it is worth mentioning so that people in his rural electorate, consisting almost entirely of the farming community, should know the standard of representation they are getting. Yesterday I received a letter from the Merredin branch of the Primary Industry Association of W.A. (Inc). Merredin is in the electorate of O'Connor. The PIA invited me to attend a meeting in Merredin to discuss the problems related to farm finance. It gave me an unequivocal assurance that the meeting would not be a replay of the disgusting exhibition at the meeting held at a place called Perenjori, at which the honourable member for O'Connor outraged everybody by turning it into a political bunfight. After that Perenjori meeting the president of the Liberal Party approached me and said: 'Mr Campbell, I want to thank you very much for the work you have done. I apologise for the behaviour of the member for O'Connor'. I said that I certainly could not hold her responsible for that behaviour and in no way did so. The lady felt so strongly about it that she wrote me a letter expressing those same sentiments. I think very many farmers in the electorate of O'Connor are ashamed and appalled at the standard of representation that they are getting. We need to look at a few things to get viability back into the industry. The pastoral areas of Australia have in the past been great suppliers of wool. For a variety of reasons these areas have come under enormous cost pressure. One of the things we should look at is the production of angora. It is possible, because of the different feeding habits of goats and sheep-goats being mainly top feeders-to increase the stocking rate by running some goats with the sheep. Techniques for fencing goats have been developed; it has been my experience in any case that goats are really no harder to hold than are English breeds of sheep. Feral goats abound on a couple of islands off the coast of Carnarvon. These goats, by a process of natural selection, now carry a very high percentage of angora-15 micron very high quality-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Could the honourable member please return to the Bill before the House. Mr CAMPBELL —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am explaining how relevant this is to the wool industry. I hope that the industry and perhaps the Wool Corporation will consider establishing itself in marketing angora as well as Australian merino and other types of wool for which we are justly famous. We have in Australia a unique opportunity to get into this expanding market. I believe that productivity in this area, and consequently the margins for the industry, can be improved. We must improve that margin throughout the industry. I think we do that by positive initiatives, not by the carping and the backbiting that has been the hallmark of the Opposition. It has brought forward matters which in the final analysis have very little bearing on the costs of production. Another thing I believe needs to be said is that the Wool Corporation deserves high praise for the standard of promotion of its products. I for one take my hat off to the people involved in it. I would like to see further promotion of blends. It is my experience that woollen silk is an extremely good material. It is a beautiful material. I imagine there would be enormous potential for us to make some arrangement with India, which is the world's largest silk producer, for the manufacture of a wool-silk fibre. We could supply the wool and have it spun and processed in India. It is something worth looking at and I just mention it in passing. As I said at the outset, each speaker on this Bill really did not need 20 minutes. I too have ranged widely. I think I have said all I need to say on the subject. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.00) —I would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being elected Chairman of Committees. I think it is a very high honour for you to hold. I have no doubt that you will do the job as well as could any male member from the Government side. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) suggested that the National Party of Australia was not represented here. I remind the House that the only reason the Australian Labor Party members are here is that the bells have rung twice tonight. Before the bells were rung only two or three Labor members were here and it took a quorum to bring them in. The National Party is the most progressive party in Australia. I remind the House that the National Party in Queensland has been elected as a government in its own right, for the first time in the history of Queensland. It is one of the best governments in Australia, and it will remain so. It represents many wool growers. The National Party-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. This debate has ranged from Islam to Queensland, and all over the place. I suggest to the honourable member for Maranoa that he have a look at the second reading speech and come back to the provisions of the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I remind the House again that the National Party of Australia represents many wool growers and has their interests at heart. We intend to do as much as we possibly can for the great wool industry throughout Australia because it operates from one seaboard to the other. Mr Steedman —Put on your gumboots and off you go. Mr IAN CAMERON —I have my riding boots on, and I am proud to represent the wool industry. Maranoa is an electorate which covers an enormous wool growing area. It runs from Dalby out to Windorah. It includes various places in between such as Cunnamulla, Quilpie, Charleville, St George and Dirranbandi. I remind the House that most people in that area do not have anything other than Australian Broadcasting Corporation on radio, and I am sure that most wool growers in that part of the world are listening to the debate tonight. To those who are, I send a cheerio message. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. Mr IAN CAMERON —I hope that most of those hard working wool growers will be out not only growing wool-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. The Bill is a very narrow one and I am sure that the wool growers in the honourable member's electorate would love to hear of its provisions. I suggest that he get back to speaking to them about it. Mr IAN CAMERON —Unfortunately for wool growers, they have to grow not only wool to make a living but also a bit of wheat in the wool-wheat areas. They work 24 hours a day and tonight most of them will be on their tractors listening to this stimulating debate. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) made a very good contribution to this debate, as did the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and other honourable members. The Bill broadens the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation. This has really been brought about over the years because governments are no longer prepared to fund such bodies. The same applies to Telecom Australia and Australia Post. It is really an indirect way of increasing taxes. Such corporations have to raise their money on the free money market. Mr Steedman —Don't you believe in free enterprise? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, I do. But years have gone by and as honourable members have pointed out to the House tonight, the Wool Board's reserve price was established with a grant of $400m by government. Mr Robert Brown —It is not the Wool Board. Mr IAN CAMERON —I must apologise to the House because this morning I referred to the Wool Corporation as a board. As an old wool grower I remember it being called a board. I remind the House that on Thursday, in the great wool growing area of Australia, the Riverina field day is being held. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) is a good member. He has just entered the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would be reluctant to ask the honourable member for Maranoa to resume his seat and to stay in it, but I will have to do so if he cannot speak to the provisions of the Bill. The indulgence of the Chair has worn out. Mr IAN CAMERON —One of the greatest field days in Australia is being held on Thursday. Sir William Gunn, the ex-Chairman of the Wool Board, is to open that field day. In regard to the reserve price scheme, l.3 million bales are presently held in reserve. The Australian Wool Corporation has had to buy these bales at an average cost of $550. Approximately $700m was outlaid to do this, and that is a lot of money. The Corporation is in debt and this amounts to 8 per cent of its total receipts. I remind the House that most of the Corporation's funds are contributed by wool growers, not by governments. It is a self- supporting scheme. Therefore I am glad that the Government is prepared to amend this Bill to allow the Corporation to borrow more funds. It is not that we like to borrow money these days because it is not a pleasant thing to do, but the wool industry has been on a downturn. It is on the up slightly now because of the better season. Mr Steedman —Because of the Labor Government. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is not necessarily the Labor Government. As I said yesterday, the great white leader of the socialist Labor Government claims to walk the water and to have made the rain, but he has not. He attempts to walk the water every day in the House. Wool promotion funding is a very sore point with all wool growers. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is here. I know he favours more funding. He has put submissions to Cabinet and asked for more funds , but what do the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), the great friend of farmers do? They refuse the Minister's request. It means that the $8m to $10m which is due to wool growers is not forthcoming. Money can be very easily given for other things. The sum of $248m is actually spent on manufacturers. As an old wool grower and a man of the bush I believe and I argue that the Corporation ought to be treated equally and extra funds ought to be given for wool promotion. Another thing that ought to happen is that money should be given on a longer term of at least three years. The industry is asking for this. I hope that for a change the Minister will be able to convince the Cabinet that this should happen . I know that he has not had any wins with Cabinet since he has been appointed. He is regarded as a reasonable Minister, but he cannot win. I hope and I plead with him that when he takes his case to Cabinet, after seeing the members of the Wool Corporation this week, he will go to the Prime Minister and Treasurer and win and will get more funds for the Corporation because they are dearly needed. I refer now to the shipping conference. Shipping is always a problem with the wool industry because most of the wool we produce is exported; therefore ships are involved. I would like the Minister to keep an eye on that and keep shipping costs down. Apart from shipping, we have tariffs. Madam Deputy Speaker, please do not call me to order because tariffs are a very important concept for those producing wool. Tariff protection is actually costing each wool grower $3,238. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am calling the honourable member to order again. There are no tariffs in this Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is true, Madam Deputy Speaker, but many wool growers produce wheat and the Labor Party has put a l5 per cent tariff on headers and it is talking about putting a l5 per cent tariff on tractors. Mr McVeigh —Fair go! Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, a l5 per cent tariff. The great white leader goes to Asia and says: 'I know what we will do. We will reduce tariffs. We will do all these sorts of things. We will open up the country'. Then what happens? He is talking about putting a l5 per cent tariff on tractors. That will cost the farmers-the wool growers of this country-$40m to $50m. Australia is the largest exporter of wool. The great rural industries earn 43 per cent of Australia's export income. The mining industry which gets all the plugs earns only 31 per cent. I point out to the swivel chair farmers on the Government side of the House that manufacturing, so loved by the Hawke socialist Labor members earn only 26 per cent of export income. Wool exports last year earned this nation $1,900m from a total sheep flock of l33 million. Fourteen per cent of the world's sheep produced 25 per cent of the world's wool. That is a fantastic effort to produce 25 per cent of the world's wool from l4 per cent of its sheep. That just shows how hardworking are the wool growers of Maranoa. Australia exports 650 million kilograms. While I am talking about agriculture, wool growers, et cetera, I would like to give the National Farmers Federation a plug. I refer to its new Advance Agriculture-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I did ask the honourable member several times to speak to the Bill. He chose to bypass the Chair so I am calling the next speaker. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to reconsider your decision and give the honourable member for Maranoa a little further latitude. He is a relatively new member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Darling Downs that I gave the honourable member at least five opportunities, as I remember it, to speak to the Bill. He chose not to do so. Mr Ian Cameron —I take a point of order. I would debate with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the suggestion that I was departing from the text of the Bill. The last words I spoke concerned wool marketing and the fact that we produce-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member did not speak to the Bill at any time when I asked him to do so. He was quoting shipping figures, mining figures and manufacturing figures. I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. (Quorum formed) Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.13) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you upon your election as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees . You will recall that you and I first met in the wool growing district of Nhill in the Victorian Wimmera in the 1960s. I must say that you have advanced a lot further than I have in the time since. I look forward to working with you. It is typical of the debates in this House that very few New South Wales country members of the Liberal and National parties should be present when important legislation such as this one relating to the wool industry is debated. In fact, I can see only one such member present. I note quite a number of New South Wales country members present on this side of the chamber. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), with whom you were extremely tolerant, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the one hand argued for less government involvement and on the other called for greater funding. That is typical of the bad weather socialists of the National Party. They are always prepared to argue for more funding when things are bad and for less government involvement when things are going well. However, I have always preferred them to members of the Liberal Party for that reason-at least they are partly socialist. Perhaps that is why we get on a little better with them. National and international trends have combined to require a broadening of the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation. Internationally, textile competition is as tough as it ever was. Increased competition from cotton as a fashion apparel fibre and from blends of cotton and synthetics has resulted from promotion on the ground of both performance and economy. The Australian Wool Corporation has confronted this competition with new product ranges such as easy care, light weight fabrics. It has set up test methods to evaluate wool blend performance in superwash or tumble drying when used in trousers and other wear. Sportswear and upholstery have been the subject of increased promotion because the Corporation has recognised their growth potential. All of the research, hard work and expertise in the world would be of little use without promotion. Doing business without promotion is like winking at someone in the dark. You know what you are doing but nobody else does. Given that the goods are sold, people want quality. They are less concerned about being cheated in regard to price than they are about the goods that they purchase. Another reason we have to give the Corporation maximum access to funding is that it can improve both quality and development. We have tough competition. We need a better product and that, in turn, means that we need more research. Why do we need to spend money? Why do we need to make more borrowing power available, as is done by this legislation, to the Australian Wool Corporation? Michael Davidson, the President of the National Farmers' Federation, has mentioned the fact that an Industries Assistance Commission report of 1976, an Australian Science and Technology Council report of 1979, a Senate committee report of 1982 and the Balderstone Committee of the same year stated that Commonwealth rural research funding must be either maintained or increased. How are we to meet the urgent need to maintain the position of an important Australian export yet accord with the Government's watch on expenditure? We do that in this Bill by broadening the borrowing power of the Australian Wool Corporation. Let us look briefly at where the research funds have gone so far. The funding of blowfly research, worm control and foot-rot research are examples. With the lush summer that has just occurred in the area of Eden-Monaro and the area surrounding Canberra, those problems will increase rapidly this year. The same will be true next summer if similar conditions prevail. Sometimes when we have drought there are fewer blowflies and worms and there is less foot-rot around but, unfortunately, when we have a lush summer these problems develop. We must continue research in these fields. Another field of research that the Corporation, through use of its trust funds, has looked into is that of feed development. Other activities include research into breeding disease, the development of insect resistant lines and weed control. The Government has played its part by increasing the allocation for wool promotion and research in 1983-84 by $31m. (Quorum formed) I was referring to a number of research fund allocations made by the Australian Wool Corporation. We are talking about a Bill which will increase the borrowing powers of that organisation. The Corporation in 1982-83 spent $6m on research. This money was spent not only on production research but also on important aspects such as wool harvesting, especially defleecing. Much of the money was spent on automated mechanical shearing. Money was also spent on research into distribution such as specification, preparation, packaging, handling and transport. In addition, money was spent on textile development. Research in this area also depends on industry initiatives. It is pleasing to see that the Goulburn wool processors have themselves developed a top class automated handling system to handle wool tops. The Government must continue to give support in this area. However, the $730,000 allocated in 1982-83 to textile research just was not enough. Broadening the borrowing capacity of the Australian Wool Corporation will not only enable these activities to be pursued more vigorously but also will mean that the Corporation can look for cheaper money. One of the most difficult years for the wool industry was 1982-83. Economic recession combined with widespread drought were beyond the influence of the Australian Wool Corporation. The drought is over. There have been uneasy and spasmodic improvements overseas and the Government has taken decisive economic steps which have helped the wool industry, including the floating of the dollar, the economic accord and the resulting drop by 30 per cent of industrial disputes . This legislation will be one step to help the wool industry cope with its most important challenge-the ability to ensure an adequate level of funding for international wool promotion and for local research and development. Like every other member who has spoken so far, I will vote for the legislation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.24) —in reply-I should like to begin by saying that tonight's proceedings have been rather disappointing. If any farmer or grazier wanted really to understand why the National Party of Australia is doing so badly in the bush, he would very quickly realise why if he had been listening to the debate tonight. The debate has ranged very widely. Although I was prepared to tolerate that, some of the nonsense that we saw in this debate really did show the way in which the National Party with its fatally flawed leader treats farmers and graziers. Members of the National Party were not prepared to speak about the Bill; they were not prepared to address the Bill . They were mainly prepared to indulge in their favourite fantasies. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) commenced his speech with a defence of the National Party Leader (Mr Sinclair). As we all know, the day the National Party Leader was elected someone asked the honourable member for Darling Downs who won. The honourable member said: 'Bob Hawke'. I think that is the first thing that the honourable member has said with which I really agree. The National Party is in desperate trouble in the bush. It will try to justify everything. The Liberal Party, in following behind the Leader of the National Party, is also in just as much trouble. I have been told in New South Wales that if the Leader of the National Party were caught in a compromising situation with an aged emu on a slippery road, he would blame Neville Wran or the Labor Party. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister is waffling on about the Labor Party in New South Wales. What does that have to do with the Bill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I uphold the point of order. Mr KERIN —Well, I will leave the aged emu alone. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who raised the question of progress at Yennora, addressed himself seriously to the Bill before the House. Likewise, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), who just resumed his seat, were prepared to talk about the wool industry. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro talked about the wool industry research and the fact that research funds are provided by the industry and the Government. So, as I said, if anyone unfortunate enough to be listening to the debate wants to know what the legislation is all about, I think it might not be a bad idea if I informed honourable members. The Bill follows a Government decision to amend two sections of the Wool Industry Act. Section 26 is being amended to broaden the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation to make it clear that the Corporation has the power to deal in securities either in Australia or overseas. Section 72 is being repealed so that investment of Wool Research Trust Fund moneys will in future be subject to the Audit Act effectively widening the scope of investment opportunities and enabling interest to be earned that is more comparable with commercial rates. That is what the Bill is all about. Some other charges were made by the Opposition about the Corporation. I think it needs to be realised that the setting up of the Corporation and the setting up of a minimum wool reserve price fund was a most successful policy of the previous Labor Government. The measures put in place then are the basic reasons why the wool industry has the mechanisms and the organisation it has today. The minor amendment that was debated in this House today simply continues our policy with respect to the Wool Corporation. The honourable member for Darling Downs raised the question of accountability. I think it just needs to be said again that the Government has a statutory obligation to oversight the operation and administration of the Australian Wool Corporation. Any statutory marketing authority should be appropriately accountable to the industry it serves and to the Parliament. It should recognise the need to be accountable. The honourable member for Darling Downs somehow thinks that the Australian Wool Corporation can escape this accountability. However, the need to be accountable arises because of the legislative backing provided by the Government and this House for the activities of statutory marketing authorities. Many Opposition speakers raised the question of the wool promotion situation. I should just simply like to say this: The previous Government cut wool promotion funding from $20m to $14m when it faced a stringent budgetary situation. The present amount of funding that is in place reflects the policy of the previous Government. The $20m a year was frozen for three years. We make no pretence of the fact that, despite the need for severe budgetary restraints and other urgent demands on the Budget when we came to office and found the mess we had inherited and found out that we had been lied to, the Government decided to provide $20m for wool promotion in 1983-84 which maintained the level committed for the triennium ending 1983-84 by the previous Government. In reaching this decision we took full account of the difficult circumstances which the wool industry had been experiencing, notably depressed demand and falling farm incomes. A submission proposing long term financial arrangements for wool promotion has been submitted for consideration by the Government. In preparing the submission, of course, the views of the industry have been taken into account. But, again, of course, this and all other spending proposals need to be considered in the light of continued budgetary restraints. Somehow or another the Opposition feels that, because there was once a Budget deficit of about $10 billion and we pruned it back to about $8.3 billion or $8.5 billion, it has suddenly disappeared. It has not. This country has a problem with the Budget. Any responsible government cannot ignore that, particularly when it is framing future budgets. I will not go into the conceptual problems. The Opposition seems to confuse research funding with promotion funding. The two are distinct. The former Government cut wool promotion funding when it was in office. The then Minister for Primary Industry, the former member for Gippsland, was a member of the razor gang committee, the Review of Commonwealth Functions. It sabotaged the Australian Wool Testing Authority. The then Minister was actually on the razor gang which set about the destruction of that body. This put all our wool at risk in terms of its measurements on the international market. We all know that the great squire from Nareen was also prepared to prejudice our trade, particularly with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, because of his own ideological fantasies. So let us have no nonsense about what the previous Government did for the wool industry and what this Government has allegedly not done for the wool industry. The Labor Party can stand proudly for what it has done for the wool industry and what it will continue to do for the wool industry. The honourable member for Darling Downs also raised the question: Why does the Minister have to be consulted? I have already dealt with that question of accountability to some degree. I point out that this is a considerable administrative improvement to the previous arrangement when the approval of two Ministers had to be sought. That resulted in delays at a cost to the wool growers. I do not think I should take up the time of the House in answering most of the nonsense that came from honourable members sitting opposite. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised the question of halal slaughter. What that has to do with an amendment to the Wool Industry Act I do not know. I simply say that the Government is well aware of the problem. There is no question of a need for proper halal certification; that is, it has to be acceptable to Moslem importing countries. We have moved to implement changes recommended by the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. The matters are complex. They involve religious, commercial and industrial aspects. It is not proper for the Government to become involved in the religious aspect. The commercial and industrial aspects of this matter are primarily matters which must be addressed by the industry and the Moslem certifying groups. In particular, officers of my Department have been in regular contact with the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. I understand that, as a result of these initiatives, representatives of these organisations will meet in the near future to attempt to resolve the differences. It is a highly complex question. As I said, the Government will not get itself involved in disputes about Islam. There are other aspects of these activities. There is a need for the industry to hold the line on any of the alleged practices that have been pointed to by the honourable member for O'Connor. We have brought in a new discipline from 1 January. We are holding the line. It is up to the industry to hold the line on this matter. I will be happy to get back to the honourable member because I believe he is seriously interested in this problem. This was a simple Bill but, as I said at the outset, the National Party has treated this as a great joke just as it treats the primary producers of this country with contempt. I think some of the comments have been disgraceful. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: FRESH VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984 CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1984 HONEY (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION BILL 1984 APPLE AND PEAR LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DRIED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this matter and the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill, the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of these Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the eight measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(9.35-These Bills are the subject of a cognate debate bearing the hallmark of Government ineptitude, lack of appreciation of, and concern for, the rural industry. It seems to me and to rural Australia that the Government is adopting an attitude of let us tax the exporters, wealth producers and the job providers of this nation on an ad hoc basis where revenue is more important than justice and good administration. It savours very much of the steel-heeled, blucher boot stamping approach. The Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) seem unaware it is driving another nail in the coffin of exporters. Four years ago 10 million cartons of apples and pears were exported and now only one million are exported. The Opposition, for its part, recognises that these are Budget Bills and it recognises the user pay principle. We have not taken lightly our approach to these Bills but we are firmly of the view that the law is not real law unless those who are bound by it and are required to make a financial contribution have full and total knowledge of what service is being provided, what are the guidelines and what are the accountability requirements. In all the second reading speeches on the Bills, the Minister has not been able to make one clear, unequivocal statement as to procedures, methods and costs. It, like him, is airy -fairy and fairy floss. For our part we reject that type of approach. We will be moving in the Senate that all these Bills, which seek to put a charge on the industry for export inspection, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and that that committee report to the Senate on the first day of sitting in May 1984. We will submit that items that it should examine include the following, and this is not the whole list, there is a whole litany. Firstly, is there a legal and international requirement for an inspection service of this type and is same required by all overseas countries and if not which overseas countries require the service; secondly, how can the industry become more self-regulating and responsible to itself thus being under only minimum government control and supervision; thirdly, should there be a flagfall charge and should charges be on an ad valorem basis or not; fourthly, should packing houses and other establishments be licensed and random rather than continuous sampling and testing be the procedure; fifthly, an examination of the Industry Assistance Commission, departmental and general committee reports on industry matters with particular emphasis on equality assurance scheme; sixthly, are there too many inspectors; are they being used in the most efficient and economical way; seventhly, is there any real reason for the same charges for canned and frozen foods; eighthly, what arrangements are necessary to ensure that State charges are the correct charges and are not responsible for such things as administration, et cetera; and ninthly, any other relevant matter. I want to deal with the Bills in order. The matter of honey charges was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in 1982 and, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, no action was taken on it after the Senate Committee reported. The honey industry in part questions the need for an export inspection service, given that a huge number of importing countries do not require a government certificate. However, for internal government procedures it is necessary to have the appropriate export permit and an Australian Honey Board permit which allows Board policy to be implemented. However, should the producer have to pay for this? Of course, it is necessary to observe standards. Some of the health standards are fairly high, such as that it must contain no more than 18.5 per cent water, no less than 60 per cent reducing sugar, no more than 0.5 per cent ash and no added pollen or glucose. It could be argued that these standards can be met by self-regulation without the need to pay $4.70 per tonne, as indicated by the Minister as only an interim measure with a payment of up to $24 per tonne in the future. The industry is concerned that a Portuguese army of inspectors could build up at a very high cost, beyond the capacity of the industry to pay. They are fearful that when the regime is introduced in October 1984 and if the huge majority of packing houses have developed their standards of hygiene inspection and quality control so that the low rate of $2 to $3 per tonne applies the Government will face a shortfall in income but will want to retain the bureaucracy. In these circumstances there could be a tendency for inspectors and authorities to put packing houses on tightened inspections and gain the revenue required to support a top heavy inspection force. It seems to me that the inspection charge of $4.70 per tonne should not be introduced even on a temporary basis. The Government should withdraw the legislation, issue strict guidelines to each packing shed and licence it in a category before the regime is implemented in October. That would be sound common sense. In any final scheme there needs to be some rationalisation and consideration of small parcels being used to develop markets so that they do not have to meet flag fall charges. Many packages are destined for our near Pacific neighbours and are usually of one carton. The charges proposed by the Minister make these packages an impractical proposition. It is for this variety of reasons that, as indicated in the Senate, we will move to have the matter looked at in order to overcome anomalies and to ensure that a proper inspection service is finally put into place. I have great difficulty, too, in accepting the hastiness of the legislation given that a final Industries Assistance Commission report is due shortly. Surely the Minister could have been patient enough to wait and to deliver an umbrella view taking into account the findings of the IAC report. Mr Kerin —On what? Mr McVEIGH —Honey. The indecisions contained in the honey legislation are insignificant compared with the lack of positive proposals and clear guidelines in the fresh, canned and frozen vegetables legislation. Industry is amazed that the Government can bring in legislation which takes no cognisance whatsoever of the realities of the market place. Firstly, I will deal with the fresh vegetable legislation. It is interesting to note that in the legislation 'vegetables' also refers to fruit. It says that in the Bill. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a practical consumer just as I am a practical farmer, and it is difficult to say that a vegetable is a fruit or that a fruit is a vegetable. However, that is the stuff that the Minister has put into the Bill. I am glad that you agree with me, as you are smiling. Maybe you share the view that the Minister is not quite as sensible as many people think he is. I as a practical farmer and you as a practical consumer obviously understand that this legal jargon is surprising and confusing. This type of confusion-that is, saying a vegetable is a fruit and a fruit is a vegetable-permeates the whole Bill. Obviously this is indicative of the fact that the legislation has been hastily prepared and badly drafted by a Minister who does not know any better and who does not care but who is under riding instructions to get out and deliver because the left wing of Cabinet has told him that he cannot really love the farmers. Concerned buyers from overseas places such as Europe, North America and some countries in the Arabian Gulf require a phyto sanitary certificate while usually South East Asian countries do not. As in the case of canned fruits, it is a requirement of the Australian Government-note that it is not a requirement of the customer; it is a requirement of the Australian Government-that under codex alimentarius, established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, certain food standards apply. I repeat that many countries do not require these certificates. It is interesting to note that the United States is not a respondent to the aforementioned code for chemical residue on produce. In effect, its standards are different from ours-strict on some and not quite as strict on others. Codex alimentarius was established in 1962 by a joint FAO and World Health Organisation conference. Its purpose is: Firstly, to protect the health of consumers; secondly, to ensure fair practice in food trade; thirdly, to promote co-ordination by government and non-government organisations and determine priorities; and, fourthly, to initiate and guide preparation of draft standards. This raises the question of what are really the legal requirements for an inspection service. One understands that, even if produce is sold to another country under a brand name, it is recognised as Australia's fruit or vegetables. In effect, Australia's good name can be damaged and markets can be lost by the individual consignor. The industry would like to come to grips with self- regulation and impose its own sanctions on people who break quality standards. It does not like government interference, especially at a cost which is based on inefficiency and bred on bureaucracy. My understanding is that, given the structure and nature of the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, very high charges are caused by centralised State primary industry officers being requmed to travel long distances and stay overnight. After reading the recent findings of the IAC report on rural adjustment I qu stion whether the States should forward an account for bona fi e services rendered. Are administrative costs which should be borne by State departments being passed on to exporters under he Commonwealth arrangements? What are the methods of account ability? The Minister has not told us these; he has left so mu h out of these Bills. We submit that these are ll matters of great importance, of great interest to the indus ry, and they need to be examined. Whilst I understand there h s been a total examination by professional people of the most ppropriate methods of charging, one questions the wisdom of f uit charges per flag fall plus a charge for each packet involv d when it might be more appropriate to bring in an ad valorem charge. At least then if an industry is doing well it can abso b the charge. If not, it is not disadvantaged as greatly as it is under the flat rate. One's mind boggles at the Minister introducing this legislation when we find that his Department, the Federal Department of Primary Industry-perhaps the Minister does not talk to members of his Department-has a committee of three examining the whole matter. Why cannot this man of great impatience, who cannot win a submission in Cabinet, wait for a practical solution rather than use the academic approach? I find it inconceivable that the Minister would introduce this type of legislation while his own Department is inquiring into the matter. He has a committee of three preparing a report. One questions also the rationale between canned and frozen fruits, those fruits having been placed together on the same charge. Arguments can be advanced as to why one charge should be higher or lower than the other. But what is more important is the fact that a committee has been set up to report on canned and frozen fruits by 1 July on what has been termed a quality assurance scheme. Again, the Minister is petulant. He cannot wait. He does not understand the practical approach. He cannot wait to get it right. He just rips in and tries to tear out the hearts and stomachs of Australia's vegetable and fruit growers. I submit with all humility that he is a man who is too full of sound, foam and academic tripe. Mr Braithwaite —Who is that? Mr McVEIGH —The Minister for Primary Industry. He will not wait for reports. He just hops in, hobnail boots and all, and sinks the blucher in, bringing the industry to a standstill. It needs to be pointed out that the canneries, because they market under a brand name, have their own quality control schemes. This was not the situation two decades ago. Now they simply cannot afford to put out inferior products. The world market is not their oyster. They are price takers and quality is their saviour. It appears to me that the proposed inspection service is an unnecessary adjunct to what the canneries are already doing. Why not bring in a minimum government supervised system wherein canneries are registered on an annual basis, subject to hygiene requirements, with random sampling several times a year? For our part, the National Party of Australia believes in self-regulation, not government interference-big brother looking over one's shoulder. Farmers in these industries have faced low prices and years of drought. The price of fuel, chemicals and wages-as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) indicated earlier today in an excellent speech on the wool industry-has exploded . It is interesting to note that last year New Zealand introduced a system of self-regulation for the simple reason that it was cheaper and just as good. What we have in Australia, under this Minister, is a system that is dear and not much chop. The Minister should indicate his concern for the industry. Surely he can digest the lessons from practical people, or does he have an infantile optimism that his hoary old arguments and Cabinet directions will be allowed to go unchallenged? He should admit that what he has proposed has been done in haste. He should indicate that these matters will be considered further when the report on the quality assurance scheme has been received, when the report of his own DPI committee has been considered and when clear guidelines are issued for the honey packers and the people engaged in the fruit and vegetable industries. If the initiative of the Opposition receives the support of the Australian Democrats, the Senate committee will ensure that these matters are thoroughly researched. For our part, we support the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Briefly, they overcome administrative problems and allocate certain fruits for certain users to the appropriate levy areas. It would seem-I am not afraid to admit it-that these anomalies should have been corrected previously. Whilst they are of rather limited application, nevertheless they are very important to the people involved and the industries concerned. They give some relief to product which is used for purposes different from those for which its levying position has been allocated. I want to use the opportunity of the amendment to the Dried Fruits Levy Act to request the Minister and the Government to be fully cognisant of the difficulties being experienced by certain dried fruit growers who are small land holders and who have had a series of bad seasons, collapsed world prices and competition from imported fruits from Greece. In passing I draw the attention of the House to the fact that earlier today in this place a National Party member and a distinguished colleague, the honourable member for Mallee, Mr Peter Fisher , who is always interested in the concerns of the people of his electorate and who worries about them, drew attention to this position. It was interesting to note that no member of the Australian Labor Party was worried about people who are placed in that situation. Mr O'Keefe —That is not unusual. Mr McVEIGH —I am grateful for the interjection from the honourable member for Paterson who said that it is not unusual for the Labor Party not to worry about people and not to be concerned about the rural industries. It is disappointing that notwithstanding the seasons being relatively good and the product being of a high quality this year, bankruptcy stares many of these people starkly in the face because of market factors outside their control. It is disappointing that the report tabled in the Parliament today, recommending a holding situation, has had no sympathetic response from the Government. All the Government has done is indicate that it will have another look at the position of these growers-the growers about whom the honourable member for Mallee is concerned; he has gone in to bat for them and is fighting for them-after the harvest to be completed in May. The Government is not worried about what will happen to them between now and May. It says: 'Let them wait. We are going to rip you apart, but we are going to carry on receiving money from you'. Mr Kerin —It is in a mess because you people would do nothing about it. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister will have his say later. The Minister said on radio that there is nothing sillier than a chook except the people who look after them . Is that not a scathing indictment on Australia's poultry farmers? Then he comes in here and starts to show concern about these people. This is a genuine welfare issue. The Minister said that poultry producers were sillier than hens. The Government has no hesitation in giving handouts to striking workers and their wives, but it is totally unsympathetic to those hard-working farmers and their families. Mr Campbell —You really are a cretin. Mr McVEIGH —That remark is offensive to me. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Which remark is the honourable member referring to ? Mr McVEIGH —I am not sure whether he is a galah or a parrot, but that fellow up there who is half asleep. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —With all the noise in the chamber I did not hear the remark. I suggest that the honourable member for Darling Downs return to his speech. He was getting a bit provocative. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your direction. I did not know whether it was a quack or a peewee talking, but I am glad that you thought the same about your colleague. I hope that the long term inquiry due to be completed in September will have a broader appreciation of the difficulties faced by dried fruit growers and their determination to endeavour to provide meaningful lives on the farms for themselves, their wives and their families. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.00) —In this general cognate debate on the Fresh Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill and the other six Bills there are a few comments I would like to make, first of all, on the speech made by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and, in particular, the last few comments he made on the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. Whilst not addressing his remarks to the Bill he had some rather ill-informed comments to make in relation to what this Government is doing so far as the dried fruits industry is concerned. His comments had nothing at all to do with this Bill, which he said the Opposition supports. I support all of these Bills that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has brought before the House. The situation of the dried fruits industry, of course, is one that is a typical example of an oversupply situation and a lack of action by the previous Government. It refused to act upon recommendations in reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on the dried fruits industry. It allowed the situation to continue until, today, it is in rather desperate straits economically. The present Government has an enormous task, and the Minister has an enormous task ahead of him, to rectify the situation in the dried fruits industry. There is no doubt that this will be done. The honourable member for Darling Downs had the cheek to say that this Government pays money to striking workers and ignores people in this industry. I can assure him that under this Government there are no striking workers being paid unemployment benefit and that every effort is going to be made to assist people in trouble no matter where they are. His remarks were totally out of step as far as this legislation is concerned. I want to talk about the export inspection charge situation. We take the policy line-and the previous Government did the same-that those people involved in industry should contribute 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection charges. From that position, of course, we have to look at the situation that as an export industry we are dealing with the world food chain and the world food situation. In this general debate I would like to spend a little time talking about the world food situation and its inherent problems. The problem itself involves a combination of the apparent inability adequately to feed many of the people of the world and the assumption that the world lacks the capacity adequately to feed an ever expanding population. Understanding the world food problem is crucial to evaluating international trade and aid policy as well as our domestic agriculture and consumer policy. World food needs arise from three primary sources-reducing hunger and malnutrition, population growth and income growth. Australia plays a major part in the world when it comes to supplying food, but hunger and malnutrition are widespread. Reliable estimates suggest that at least 450 million people in the world are malnourished, and even in the last week or two we have seen front page stories in our local media of the tragedies in Africa at the present time. However, in the world as a whole the primary cause of malnutrition is poverty. The malnutrition problem is in many instances compounded by a combination of a lack of knowledge and even religious restrictions imposed upon diet. Most malnourished people live on a very limited diet of grain grown in the area in which they live. Some people either simply do not have the resources to provide sufficient food or enough income to buy food. As a result poor crops tend to bring famine and disaster. The world is not very far away from that situation at the present time, even though we have a massive world surplus at the moment of some products. The world population passed the four billion mark in l976, which was twice the l940 population. Predictions of future world population growth cover a wide range. One prediction suggests that the limit of population growth would be reached in the year 2075 when world population would reach eight billion to nine billion. Others suggest that before the limit is reached a stationary world population of 11 billion people is possible. The combined effect of efforts to curb malnutrition, satisfy the food needs of an expanding population and improve diets is to increase consumption of food faster than available supplies in the developing countries, where three-fourths of the world's population live. Food production in the developing countries is increasing at an annual rate of 2.9 per cent while the effective demand for food is increasing at a rate of 3.8 per cent. The result is an increasing need to import food and primary grain from many countries. Poor countries, however, are in a worse position to import due to extremely low incomes and their need to import expensive oil and their high level of national debt. These are some of the issues that I would have expected we would have heard from the National Party of Australia tonight rather than its very narrow view of what goes on as far as agriculture is concerned. The demand for grain is also increasing rapidly in the centrally planned economies. The governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and eastern European countries have made commitments to upgrade the diets of their people by increasing the availability of meat. Production increases, however, have not kept pace with needs and the problem is exacerbated by large year to year production variability. To overcome food deficits and production shortfalls , centrally planned economies have increased their shares of the world's imports . Food demand is increasing at the slowest rate in the developed countries, where the population growth tends to be less than one per cent. Increased demand in these countries has resulted largely from increased incomes and an associated effort to improve diets. In the eighteenth century an English economist, Thomas Malthus, thought unchecked population growth would inevitably outstrip the available food supply. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I realise that the second reading debates are wide-ranging debates. I stuck very closely to the Bills. These Bills are about export inspection charges. I do not think that has anything to do with grain imports in developing countries, nor has it anything to do with what an economist said in the eighteenth century. I just ask you, as a mark of respect to people who are in difficulties, to require that the honourable member at least read the Bill and stick somewhere close to the facts. Mr Kerin —I regard the honourable gentleman's intervention as being arrant hypocrisy because in the debate he took all the liberty that he wanted, as did his colleagues. I think what the honourable member for McMillan is saying is pretty germane to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I take the point that the Minister has made. I have been listening to the honourable member. In my opinion he is sticking to the Bill to the same extent as the honourable member for Darling Downs when he addressed the House a short while ago. He was allowed a fair amount of latitude. I do not consider that the honourable member for McMillan is ranging any further in that respect than he did. I call the honourable member for McMillan. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue with the theme because we are dealing with Bills dealing with exports, and if the export of food does not involve the world food situation, I do not know what does. The honourable member for Darling Downs would do well to have a little listen to some of the wider problems and he may be able to learn a little. I was saying that the English economist, Thomas Malthus, thought that the unchecked population growth would inevitably outstrip the available food supply. Since then rapid advances in agricultural technology have resulted in crop and livestock output increases far greater than Malthus or anybody else at that stage could have thought possible. However, the adequacy of future food production is still in doubt. Over time the world food supply-demand balance has become increasingly precarious. The surpluses of the l960s were replaced by periodic production deficits in the 1970s. The future is uncertain. The experience of the Australian continent in the last 12 months, when we had a very severe drought, can clearly show that if that drought hits the northern hemisphere as severely in the next 12 months we would have massive famine throughout the world in a very short time. Periodic deficits could become chronic. Several signals suggest this outcome. Irrigation water supplies are increasingly being depleted and are facing greater competition from urban and industrial uses. Overgrazing and changes in weather patterns have resulted in reduced productivity and desertification of regions, particularly in parts of Africa. Further pressures for full production of food and fibre lead to soil depletion and erosion as marginal land is brought into production and the intensity of farming increases. Marginal land is more susceptible to weather problems, resulting in greater variation in production. Increasingly scarce energy supplies limit the use of nitrogen fertiliser and raise the cost of production. Some of these indications are apparent in parts of Australia at present. We cannot shut our eyes to some of these problems at this stage, otherwise much of our land will go out of production, as has land in other parts of the world. Higher yielding, as well as more drought and pest resistant varieties are continuously being developed in the scientific laboratories of international research institutes, universities, departments of agriculture and private industry. Opportunities also exist for increased efficiency of feed conversion in livestock. That is a contentious point when the present situation is compared with what has already occurred with poultry. In the long run increased potential appears to exist for major breakthroughs in production through genetic engineering. Expanding production is also dependent upon the existence of incentives or rewards for producers. In market-oriented economies these rewards are in the form of profit and appreciation in assets values. Farmers respond to profit incentives. It would be a mistake to leave the impression that the world food problem is simply a matter of supply and demand for food. It is, in fact, much more complex . Many of the complexities result from systems of government and decisions of government in reaction to political pressures. That is certainly what we have had in this country for far too long. We have had governments reacting to and developing policies based on political pressures from small sectional groups and not developing policies right across the board. This in turn affects the farmers ' related businesses, and consumers. For example, the assurance of an adequate supply of food at reasonable prices is such a high priority that many, if not most, countries have established policies that encourage domestic production and provide central control of exports, imports and the price of food itself. Some countries have policies that, by suppressing consumer prices, also discourage farm production by placing ceilings on the price at which products may be sold. In addition, countries such as the United States of America at times have placed embargoes on the export of agricultural commodities as a means of holding down domestic prices, of providing assurances of domestic supplies or as an element of foreign policy. All of these policies are barriers to free trade and as such they reduce the overall level of production in the world and increase the average price of food for people throughout the world. In speaking tonight in this general cognate debate, some of the issues that I have raised are very important for governments of the future. When we speak in debates such as this, in a cognate debate, many people do not take it very seriously. In my view tonight the National Party of Australia has decided that its days are numbered, that it does not believe that it is a force any longer. Performance of its members clearly showed that by their irresponsible approach in the Parliament this evening. Just because we have a cognate debate on seven Bills it does not mean that agricultural situations or food will not be major issues in the world towards the end of this century. Unless members of parliament take the subject seriously they will find to their peril that they will suffer. People of the world who are malnourished depend on us to send them products that have been inspected. These Bills are designed to do that. We have inspection services to provide food that people can consume without its being dangerous to their health. If honourable members do not take their job seriously, the public at large will clearly judge them on that. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry who is at the table is taking the view that is needed, that is, a wide ranging look at policies on the basis that the consumer must be considered, as must the people working in the industries. All of these Bills before the House are ones that any member of parliament should be keen to support. The honourable member for Darling Downs said that the Opposition supported the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill but also told us that the other Bills would be subject to scrutiny in the Senate. If the Opposition wants to take that view because it has the numbers in the Senate, it will be judged on that. Export inspection charges are part of a policy that was initiated by the previous Government, and a policy with which this Government clearly agrees. Within the rural sector one does not find people who are not prepared to pay their 50 per cent share of the export inspection charges. I commend the Bills to the House and say to the Parliament and to the public that, whilst we understand that out in the country some people think that Labor governments do not have policies to support the rural sector, I can assure them that from this time on they will see that this Labor Government does care and that our vision is much wider than that of the sectional interests of the National Party. I fully support the Bills before the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.16) —I am pleased to enter this debate. I will try to talk about apples, in addressing myself to the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill. I will try to avoid getting involved in arguments with the Government. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) introduced a rather interesting thought. He probably knows that two-thirds of the world's population live in total poverty. We all should realise that if we are to assist these countries that are deep in poverty, we have to make certain that we are able to put products on the market that will help them. I suppose that to a degree the inspection aspect comes into that. It is a funny thing but today the apple industry really commences in the Huon Valley. The Huon Valley, as some honourable members from the Government side probably would not know, is in the electorate of Franklin. It is the heart of the apple industry of Tasmania. Of about 235 growers in Tasmania, 195 come from the Huon Valley. They are very good people. They are probably the best producers of apples in the world. Some of them are third generation. It has been considered by many experts throughout the world that in producing the apple to the point of export they are probably the best in the world. As we all know, many problems occur with export. Mr Groom —It should be the Apple Isle again. Mr GOODLUCK —My friend the honourable member for Braddon, one of the finest exponents of promoting the isle of Tasmania, said that it should be called the Apple Isle again. I agree. We had a marvellous hook in Tasmania. One needs a hook. Everyone needs a hook to survive and succeed. The Australian Labor Party will fail because it does not have a hook. We had a marvellous hook, the term Apple Isle. We let it go and we called it the Tourist Isle. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Franklin might hook back on to the debate. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry; I got a bit carried away because in the House tonight are two fine Tasmanian footballers. One won the William Leitch medal, which is equivalent to the Brownlow medal. I refer to Chris and Michael Hawkins. I will come back to the Bill. It is nice to have Tasmanians here. They mean a lot. They promote Tasmania and the apple industry. I will come back to the export of apples, which is very important. That is what we are talking about tonight: The ability to be able to export and to make certain that apples exported from Tasmania are of good quality. That is what the Bills are about specifically. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) would not know much about apples. He knows a lot about fowl but not very much about apples. One needs the best quality apples to get into the market and succeed. That is what people are doing in Tasmania. They have learned from the sins of the past when they decided at one stage to glut the market and to be competitive . They put apples on the market that were not of the best quality. A report in the 6 March edition of the Sydney Sun entitled 'Apples Will Get a Rattle on Soon', stated: If you're longing for the taste of a genuine English apple, you have only three weeks to wait for the first of the new season Cox's pippins to arrive from Tasmania. So the people in Sydney are waiting for the export of the Cox's orange pippin from Tasmania. It is probably one of the best apples in the world. The writer of the report said that that was the good news for such and such a reader. The report continued: The Cox Orange Pippin, the apple with a rattle, is one of the world's 'Top Ten' eating apples. It comes from Tasmania, and is one reason we need good export markets. We need good people to scrutinise the apples to make certain they are of the best quality. We will then be able to put our apples on to the mainland market and compete with its apples. We will be able to toss them aside. I think apples are grown in the electorate of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). We will take over because our apples are the best. Mr Groom —Talk about freight equalisation. Mr GOODLUCK —We had a Minister at the table talking about freight equalisation. Mr Simmons —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. While not wanting to detract from the comments that the honourable member is making about the apples that are grown in my electorate, I think the comments are very wide ranging when we consider that the Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill that we are discussing at present really has no relevance to the comments that the honourable member for Franklin is currently making. Mr Drummond —Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just make a comment on the point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member is not permitted to make a comment on the point of order. I have not yet ruled on it. Mr Drummond —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I believe that when the honourable member for McMillan was speaking it was difficult for you to relate his comments to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Forrest that I had not ruled on the point of order when he rose. There is no point of order. Mr GOODLUCK —The report continues in its description of the Cox's pippin: A flat variety with streaky red to dirty green skin, its firm white flesh is very aromatic- That means smell, for the benefit of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly)- and could give you heartburn, unless your taste buds are tuned to apples with a 'bite'. The Cox's orange pippin is one of the best apples in the world. That is why we need the strictest inspection in Tasmania. That is why the apple growers in Tasmania do not mind paying a levy to the Apple and Pear Corporation, but they only want to do so if they are sure that the marketing aspects of that Corporation do the job. All honourable members know what marketing means. It is the end product; it is the whole process of production to the end user. If they are certain that it will be a good product and they get a good return for their money they will be happy. In today's Mercury-that is the local paper which I cannot get in very much; they really have me on the blacklist at the moment-in an article entitled, 'Huon picking starts this week', it is stated: Apple-picking begins in the Huon Valley this week- That is the valley I mentioned, the most beautiful valley in Tasmania, where the apple growers are the-- Mr McVeigh —They have a good representative in this Parliament, the best. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you very much. I like a bit of praise. Anyway, the apple growers of the Huon Valley are the best in the world. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who is trying to interject, would not know. He cannot grow apples in Kalgoorlie. They cannot be grown in Canberra either. Up here the streets are lined with gold. There is much that can be done about apple by- products. We could have apple pies and apple cider and other products. That is terribly important. We talk about the Third World and the things that it needs. It is regrettable that in the Huon Valley if varieties are not up to specific sizes they drop to the ground and there is not the ability to get them to the markets in Hobart. Mr Groom —They should go to the Third World. Mr GOODLUCK —Apples for the Third World. That is a very good, fine proposition if we could do it. We would encounter many problems in trying to get apples to the Third World. Apples are sold overseas, and people from the poverty stricken parts of the Third World love apples. It seems regrettable that that is just one indication of the problems we have. The honourable member for McMillan went on for half an hour about the Third World. That is a very interesting point. The apple industry commences in Hobart in Tasmania this week. It looks like a very promising period for Tasmania. Mr Salter, the President of the Tasmanian Apple and Pear Growers Association is reported in the Mercury as saying: . . . the expected total Tasmanian crop was 3,724,000 cartons, compared with an actual crop of 3,922,000 cartons last year. So there has not been the drop anticipated by many growers. We are holding our own. We have had the problems with the dam and the other things. The Tasmanian people desire to get up and work. The apple growers have accepted that very important point that the industry is so important to Tasmania. Mr Groom —Dr Brown and Bob Hawke. Mr GOODLUCK —I ask the honourable member not to talk about Dr Brown. This Government reminds me of an apple: It gives me the pip and it is rotten to the core. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair on the subject matter of the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry about that remark, Mr Speaker. I was being facetious about it. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the honourable member to address the Chair and ignore the interjections. Mr GOODLUCK —The very important thing is inspection. The very important thing about the apple industry is to make absolutely certain that the apples that are exported from Tasmania and the other States in Australia are of the best quality . We should make certain that they are inspected so that if they get on to the world markets they can compete in quality. It should be ensured that none of them are bad. I will quote the classic example in the parliamentary dining room. An apple was thrown to me by Sir Reginald Wright. He said to me nicely: 'Bruce, have a look at this apple'. I took one bite of the apple and discovered that the inside was rotten. I traced that apple back-- Mr Hollis —It came from Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —No, it did not come from Tasmania. I was making a very important point to which I wish the honourable member would listen. That apple had been about three or four places before it got to that dining room. The marketing was all wrong; the inspections were all wrong; and the ultimate consumer suffered as a result. I am very appreciative of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) who is a very good shadow Minister and knows a lot about the apple industry. He mentioned Tasmanian honey. I agree that the Leatherwood honey produced in Tasmania is of the best quality. It is scrutinised very carefully before it goes on to the markets of Australia. It is able to compete with every other honey in Australia because it is of the best quality. Mr Groom —It is a honey of a State. Mr GOODLUCK —It is a honey of a State. I am pleased to support the Bills. Although I very rarely support the Government, I support some of the Bills tonight. I hope that the Minister and some of his gentlemen over there will learn a little. Sometimes I think that people who do not know very much about the apple industry say a lot about it. Mr Groom —They are all welcome to come. Mr GOODLUCK —They are all welcome to come and look at our wonderful apple industry. If they go down the Huon Valley they will understand what it is like to be proud of an island that should be called the Apple Isle. It should remain the Apple Isle because of the quality of the apples we produce. The inspection of those apples is of paramount importance. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.30) —I wish to speak briefly on the adjournment today about two matters. The first is the tragic event which occurred this morning in Sydney, involving Mr Justice Gee. Mr Speaker, no doubt you, like me, would have been very saddened to learn of the bombing of the home of Mr Justice Gee. You will perhaps recall that Mr Justice Gee served as a specialist adviser to the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act before his appointment to replace the late Mr Justice Opas, whom honourable members will recall died in very tragic circumstances. Mr Speaker, you will no doubt have heard of the very significant contribution that Mr Justice Gee made to the work of the parliamentary Committee when it undertook its review of the Family Law Act, and particularly of his very positive contribution in helping the Committee develop its proposals for joint ownership of the matrimonial home. I take the opportunity of mentioning this matter simply to observe that it is very unfortunate when people appear to take out on a member of the judiciary their frustrations with the legal system. One of the matters which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act addressed when it brought down its report related to the ways and means in which a judge, in particular cases, should adjudicate on very difficult questions involving the custody of children and the way in which property should be divided between parties. The Committee felt that the courts should have some signposts from the Parliament as to the way in which they were expected to deal with these matters rather than the matters being left , apparently and almost totally, to the discretion of a judge. I hope that in the context of what we have seen occur in this case and in others the Government will again look seriously at this proposal from the Joint Select Committee in regard to joint ownership of the matrimonial home. It was my view and the view of the Committee that this would be one way of identifying in the minds of parties that there was an expectation that property interests might well be apportioned, unless the parties otherwise agreed, not on divorce but as a consequence of people marrying. I think that if the psychological aspects of these matters can be changed in people's minds it may very well have a significant impact in limiting the occasions on which judges are required to adjudicate on matters in which emotions are involved and the judges appear to have an absolute discretion to deal with such matters. I know Mr Justice Gee personally, not only from his involvement with the Joint Select Committee but also in his role as Chairman of the Christian Lawyers Fellowship, and as a very committed christian and lay preacher in the Church of England. I have had the opportunity of seeing him in that role on a number of occasions. The other matter I want to address tonight concerns the nurses' strike in Western Sydney over staff shortages. Honourable members will be aware that at Blacktown over the last several days there has been an industrial dispute involving nurses. Honourable members would perhaps have seen in news reports that the nurses marched on the office of a State member of parliament. I want honourable members to be aware of the plight of the western suburbs, because although we have been led to believe that beds have been closed down elsewhere in Sydney to open up beds in the western suburbs, that has not been the case. We have a very large hospital at Westmead, with 950 beds. During the Christmas period only 450 beds were able to be used and now only 600 beds are in use. That is largely because of lack of funds and staff, notwithstanding the very significant reapportionment that we have been led to believe has been occurring throughout hospitals in the western suburbs. In places such as Liverpool, Parramatta and Mount Druitt there are severe shortages which are occasioning the same sorts of problems that are evident in Blacktown. This is a matter of very considerable concern in the forthcoming State election. It is a matter of concern to the people in western suburbs generally and a matter which I am sure people in New South Wales will be taking into account when they have to make their decision at the polls on 24 March. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.34) —In the past two days we have seen the standards of this Parliament reduced to the level of the gutter. We have witnessed the forms and the privileges of this House being used to cast clouds over the characters and judgments of individuals who hold positions of great respect and standing in our community. This has been done with no regard for fact, for truth-- Mr Newman —What about the ones you maligned last year? Mrs KELLY —It comes from people like the honourable member. It has been done with no regard for truth or the propriety of their actions. Why has this occurred? It has occurred for two reasons. First, it has occurred because members of the Opposition had their egos dented by the numerous columns in the papers at the weekend which criticised their lack lustre performance last week. So on Monday they returned determined to huff, to puff, to attempt to demonstrate that they are brave, tough men. They did that while hiding behind the privileges of this House. What have they done? They have ignored facts and they have used innuendo to make headlines. The second reason is, of course, the calling of the New South Wales election. If anyone in New South Wales wanted to see demonstrated the reason for the New South Wales election, he would only have to witness the despicable performance of the Federal Opposition this week. Federal Opposition members have mirrored the standards of behaviour of their New South Wales counterparts over the past months. Slander and innuendo have replaced reasoned debate and concern for the truth. But the voters in New South Wales will not be impressed. Do honourable members opposite think for one moment that the voters in Manly, Earlwood, Gundagai, Queanbeyan-in any part of New South Wales-will really change their votes because of the scandalous accusations of the Opposition? They will vote on the jobs generated through the public works program, and on the stable government that Neville Wran has provided for New South Wales for the past seven years. The real loser in the debate, besides the obvious victims of the character assassinations which have occurred, is the Parliament itself. This debate has demonstrated that many politicians do not deserve the privileges they hold in this House. Politicians must earn the respect of their communities. Over the past two days many members of the Opposition have demonstrated that they do not deserve that respect. If any swinging voter from New South Wales had listened to the display in this House by the Opposition, there is no doubt that he or she would vote for the return of an Australian Labor Party government on 24 March, because Australians believe in the principle of 'fair go'. They believe in a fair go for their fellows. Members of the Opposition have denied that principle by their irresponsible behaviour. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.37) —I raise the question of the Government's decision to refuse visas to two public figures from South Africa in the last week. I refer to Mr Ken Durr, who is a member of parliament, and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, who is a member of the President's Council. I refer also to Dr Craven, who was refused a visa last year. Mr Hand —You support apartheid, do you? Mr WHITE —The honourable member should listen; he might learn something. These three men are moderate South Africans. Dr Craven in particular has done more than probably any man in South Africa to try to make some progress towards a more equitable society, which we all want to see in South Africa. But it will not be achieved overnight and it certainly will not be achieved by not recognising those people who are trying to make progress in that country. The visas were refused on the basis that it was to be, in the Government's words, 'a propaganda exercise in Australia'. I believe that decision is totally hypocritical and these are my reasons: Firstly, many members on the opposite side of the House have visited South Africa in recent years. Last year the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), for example, went there. Mr Robert Brown —And the honourable member for Hunter. He was appalled by it, absolutely appalled. Mr WHITE —I am glad the honourable member went there. He is entitled to his decision as to what South Africa represents. But why is it all right for the honourable member to go to South Africa and not all right for those men to come here and put a point of view? The second reason which makes the decision hypocritical is simply that the Government has allowed the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation to open offices in Australia to put a point of view. Yet when someone from the South African Government or someone from the President's Council wants to come here to put a point of view he is denied. The next reason that I believe it is totally hypocritical is that I believe the Government encourages visits from communists and totalitarian regimes. I refer for example to the coming visit by the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, a communist country that is occupying Kampuchea and is providing bases for Russian bombers whose range covers the whole of Australia. It is all very well for the Foreign Minister of Vietnam to come here but it is not good enough for an MP from South Africa to come here, particularly when honourable members have had the privilege of going to his country. The Government also encourages the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and the Prime Minister of China to come here, and for very good reasons. No one denies that. But why is it all right for the communists to come to this country and not for someone from another country in order to put a point of view? As I understand it , the South African Embassy in Australia quietly sought out the Department of Foreign Affairs to see whether the visits would be acceptable. It was told that they would not be. But when in Cabinet a case is made out by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in order to satisfy some left wing ideology that he wants to put, and put again, for no logical reason whatsoever the Cabinet decides to satisfy it. The decision is: 'Yes, we will sacrifice principle. We will not let these people come but we will let all of these others come; that is all right. You can have the Prime Minister of China and all these other people. The Foreign Minister of Vietnam is welcome but we will not have an MP from South Africa'. This is just symptomatic of the mish-mash of foreign policy that characterises this Government. All we see around the world is the alienation of our friends, for some reason which escapes me. If any Government supporter can tell me that there is any logic in refusing visas to those two people from South Africa to come and put a point of view when the Government encourages all these others to come, I would very much like to hear about it. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.43) —Mr Speaker, what is happening on the Bathurst political scene? On 29 October 1983 the National Party selected Councillor Toole as its endorsed candidate after the defeated member from the 1981 election, Mr Osborne, decided not to contest pre-selection. Despite continued speculation in last week's Western Advocate, the local newspaper, that Councillor Toole would step aside, he commented as reported in that newspaper on 2 March: Cr Toole said there was 'no way' he would be standing down for anyone. 'I am the endorsed National Party candidate for the seat of Bathurst and that is that. I will definitely be standing,' he said. Three days later the same newspaper reported: Late yesterday afternoon indications were that the National Party might be standing two candidates but there was still no definite word about whether the Liberal Party would endorse a candidate. Mr Osborne said yesterday afternoon that following the announcement of the snap election he had held discussions with the State Chairman of the National Party, Mr David Brownhill, and members of the local organisation and had agreed to nominate for the National Party on a joint ticket with Cr Toole. Cr Toole said he knew nothing of any proposal for a joint ticket. As far as he was concerned he was the endorsed National Party candidate and would be expecting loyalty from all party members and supporters. What is the latest development? The Western Advocate reports: Mr Clive Osborne has been approached by the National Party to stand as a dual endorsed candidate. The matter is to be considered tomorrow night by the local branch of the National Party. The endorsed candidate, Councillor Toole, said, 'I will abide by what the Electorate Council does. I would stress that my decision in this matter is quite a voluntary one.' It sounds as though the Nationals are using some of their old stand-over tactics here. The report continues: Councillor Toole said he would be more than happy now to stand on a joint ticket with Mr Osborne. Meanwhile, what are the local Liberals doing? This is better than a Monty Python movie! The Liberals, according to today's Western Advocate, are awaiting the outcome of the National Party's Wednesday evening meeting before deciding to run a candidate. If the Nationals stood two candidates, the standing of a Liberal candidate might not be opportune. Talks are continuing with a prominent Bathurst local government figure who could receive Liberal Party nomination if the party does decide to stand a candidate. However, the person concerned said late yesterday afternoon that he would not be accepting Liberal Party nomination at this stage. Mr Beddall —When is the election? Mr SIMMONS —One wonders when the election is. What election plans for the Bathurst area does the coalition have in mind? This is rather interesting. The coalition will encourage private enterprise to take over power generation in New South Wales. I am sure that all of the power station employees at the Wallerawang power station will be impressed by that sort of commitment. The coalition also proposes closing down the Mt Piper project and transferring it elsewhere in New South Wales. It also proposes to prune drastically country rail depots and run down a notable achievement of the Wran Government-the New South Wales public transport system. I put it to honourable members that the only choice the people of the Bathurst electorate will have is the present member for Bathurst, Mick Clough. At a recent meeting of the State Cabinet in Bathurst on 8 February, the Premier, according to the Press, made these comments: Mr Wran said if people were expecting a custom-made politician in a pin-striped suit then they were not thinking of Mr Clough. 'In Mick, people have got a man who works hard for his constituents,' he continued. 'He has fought problems for people in Bathurst and won them.' Mr Wran said Mr Clough wore a track to the rooms of Ministers and was most aggressive as an MP for his electorate. The people of Bathurst will reject the sort of outright nonsense that the National and Liberal parties are going on with in Bathurst at present. They will reject this brawling and, like many electors throughout New South Wales, on 24 March will ensure that people such as Mick Clough and many other Labor supporters will return to Macquarie Street. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(10.47) —Over the last several days we have seen some of the greatest displays of hypocrisy from members of the Australian Labor Party that I can remember seeing in this House. The honourable member for Newcastle, who is trying to interject, is a prime example. Mr Robert Brown —I am not the member for Newcastle. Mr NEWMAN —Well, whichever electorate the honourable member represents. He is so insignificant that I cannot remember. I refer to the honourable member who has joined in debates on various matters of public importance, declaiming against the Opposition for daring to use parliamentary privilege to probe what has happened in the tapes area. He forgets completely the numbers of Government members who, when they were in opposition used parliamentary privilege over a period of not just several months but years. As for double standards, the most sanctimonious double-standard speech that I have heard from anybody was given by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). I ask the honourable member for Canberra, when she complains about the probing of the Government's actions in the tapes affair-- Mrs Kelly —I was not complaining about the probing. Mr NEWMAN —Just keep quiet and listen for a moment. Mr Steedman —Is that the way you talk to your wife? Mr NEWMAN —It is the way I will talk to any member of this House who utters sanctimonious, hypocritical speeches such as the honourable member has made tonight. I remind her of some of the actions of her colleagues when they sat on this side of the House. Has she forgotten how they hounded the then Treasurer, Mr Lynch, day after day in this place? In the end he was proven to be an absolutely innocent bystander in regard to the numbers of accusations that were made against him. Government supporters may laugh but that shows their standard. They have forgotten that they hounded the former Treasurer month after month, day in day out, on a matter on which he was found eventually to be totally innocent. Have they forgotten how the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-- Mr Hand —I rise on a point of order. Seeing that the honourable member for Bass is requesting that the truth be told, I ask that he tell us about the tax avoidance scheme-- Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr NEWMAN —Have they forgotten how the present Minister for Finance, when he sat on this side of the House, day in and day out hounded members of the public regarding tax evasion schemes? Have they forgotten his references to Mr Horgan in Western Australia and Mr John Reid in New South Wales? Have they forgotten how he dragged their names through the mud in this place and how, in the end, they also were found to be totally innocent? If honourable members opposite are going to set that sort of standard they must expect to get it back in kind if they have people who can be attacked by members on this side of the House. Have they forgotten how the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this place attacked the then Deputy Leader of our Government, Mr Anthony? Have they forgotten how he quietly dropped a couple of names using the Volkman case to try to demonstrate that Mr Anthony had intervened to suppress investigations into Nugan Hand? Have they forgotten that? The Minister for Foreign Affairs used parliamentary privilege to besmirch the name of Mr Anthony. Have they forgotten how the Minister for Foreign Affairs attacked the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), again using Volkman, to try to impugn his name under parliamentary privilege? Have they forgotten that a member of the then Opposition, whose name I cannot remember, tried to drag the then Prime Minister's relations through the mire-the Beggs family-by making accusations about so-called loans that he may have had from Victorian authorities? I can remember only some of them. However, I have named at least a dozen occasions. I know that honourable members opposite do not like this. The sneer on the face of the honourable member for Canberra is an indictment of the Government's double standards and its sanctimonious, hypocritical attitudes in this House. When Government members attack us in the future for using parliamentary privilege legitimately to probe their actions and the actions of their colleagues in New South Wales, just remember the countless occasions when they, in Opposition, used the same means to besmirch people outside and in this House. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.53) —Tonight I was a member of a Government committee which was considering an extremely important submission prepared by the National Shelter group. Let me read to the House a small part of the submission so that honourable members can see just how important it is for this Parliament and every member to be aware of what it contains. The submission states: In all States and Territories the story is the same: if you are poor and a single parent, unemployed, black, invalid, aged, migrant, a youth, or a single woman or man, then the probability is that you are also currently inadequately housed, homeless, or paying a large proportion of income on rent. Regional and State differences notwithstanding the problems are the same across Australia: hundreds of thousands of households trying to survive on incomes below the Poverty Line; their need for income relief expressed in record waiting lists and waiting times for an inadequate stock of public housing which is on the whole poorly located and insensitively managed. On page 18 the submission states: . . . estimates that there are 672,000 pensioners and beneficiaries living in the private rental market. It is difficult to estimate the additional number of privately renting low wage households; however, case study information from emergency relief and housing services indicates that there is a heavy demand from these households, many of whom are paying a large proportion of their incomes in rent. Further to that, the following comment is made on page 2l: Over 200,000 Australian households live in caravans and other makeshift housing . Few of these households have any other housing options, and the costs and conditions of caravan living grind away whatever hope many had of getting out. Do honourable members know what members of the Opposition were doing while the committee of which I was a member was considering this report and listening to the extraordinarily good submission that was presented by the dedicated young people who put the report together? They were calling quorums. Three members of the Opposition were in this House while the Wool Industry Amendment Bill was being debated. They are so keen about listening to the debate on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill that there were three of them in this House. They were busy calling quorums, purely mischievously, without any intention at all of listening to the debate on the Bill, without any interest in the debate on the Bill, without any concern about whatever else might be going on and without any concern at all for the 120,000 inadequately housed families in Australia that this Government wants to do something about on the basis of acquiring information and on the basis of being informed and concerned about what these people are doing. Three members of the Opposition were busy having bells rung because they knew that Government committees were meeting tonight. They knew that the best way to disrupt the whole of the Government's operations was to be frivolous, mischievous and stupid. Believe you me, that attempt is simply irritating. It has nothing to do with our determination to form a housing policy which will be adequate for all the people of this country, particuarly those people who have been so abysmally neglected for the last seven years in which public housing stock has run down, public rental housing stock has run down and private rental housing has become out of the reach of those people who most need it. That is what we are trying to do. What is the Opposition trying to do? It is doing everything within its mean little power to use the Standing Orders of this House to do anything it can to disrupt Government Business. The Opposition was not able even to think about those 120,000 families. It could not care less about them. The Opposition had seven years to do something about housing. It does not care about the farmers because if it did Opposition members would have been in the chamber when the Wool Industry Amendment Bill was being debated. They were not. All that members of the Opposition wanted to do was to show how smart-Alicky little boys they can be, and they succeeded. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.57) —In the few minutes that are left in this adjournment debate I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister for dissociating himself from the quite disgraceful comments made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) today surrounding the very unfortunate and disturbing bombing of the Sydney home of Family Court judge Richard Gee. I think this House ought to be reminded of what the Attorney-General did, which is so far unsatisfactorily explained to the Australian community. He claimed that in some way the comments that have been made in this place about some members of the judiciary encouraged people to engage in the sort of conduct which is of such great concern to us. I think the Prime Minister ought to be given credit. I am always willing to give the Prime Minister credit when he does something correct. He has done the right thing today. He has dissociated himself from his Attorney-General. I think there may be a little more in that than meets the eye. I think the Attorney-General is starting to look very, very lonely because the Attorney- General, of course, is absolutely renowned not only in the legal profession but also around this place as somebody who has a tendency to run off at the mouth. We know the explanation he gave in the Senate today about why he made this statement. He said that it was a quarter to seven in the morning and that he was rung up early and he had had a fairly late night. Well, dear, dear me, that something like that should happen to a Minister in the present Government. It really is a very serious matter on such a very unfortunate occasion that the first law officer of the nation-- Mr Lusher —He is the Rip van Winkle-- Mr Hollis —I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, there is no evidence that the Attorney-General did say that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr HOWARD —As my colleague the honourable member for Hume suggested, it is the Rip van Winkle defence. We had the streaker's defence from the Attorney-General; now we have another one. It really is a very serious matter. We are not playing with something that is trifling; we are playing with a very serious situation. Is anybody suggesting for a moment that when tragically in Sydney three years ago a member of the Family Court was shot dead that in some way resulted from adverse comments that were then being made about members of the judiciary? I hope that no one is suggesting that because if they are I might remind them of who was making adverse comments about the judiciary at that time. I just think that what has happened today ought to be a reminder to people on both sides of the House that occasionally the glib remark, the smart-Alick comment and the willingness to score a political point at the moment ought to be eschewed by everybody. If members on the other side of the House are to have any credibility, what they ought to do is endorse overwhelmingly what their Prime Minister and Leader said about the Attorney-General because that Attorney-General is becoming a very , very isolated man. He is becoming a man who is very, very unsure of himself. He has reason to be unsure of himself. Not only has he made an absolute fool of himself today, with the comments that he made, but on top of that he has put forward an increasingly less credible defence of what the Government is doing over the Age tapes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the House is adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to make provision for the protection of the Advance Australia logo, and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 6 March 1983: Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which the following Act shall come into operation-Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981-6 March 1984. Mrs Kelly to ask Mr Speaker: (1) What are the criteria for the selection of Parliamentary Fellows. (2) On what basis was the selection made in the last round. (3) What efforts are made to ensure that equal opportunity guidelines are observed in the selection process. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 855 Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following lists of inter-departmental committees have been prepared in accordance with guidelines provided by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as follows: 'The accepted definition of an inter-departmental committee is a committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is a cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister'. 1 (a) (i) The Department of Communications participates in the following inter- departmental committee: Inter-Departmental Committee on Australian Government Housing Scales and Standards. 1 (a) (ii) The Department of Communications chairs the following inter- departmental committees. The subject matter of these committees' inquiries is set out in respect of each Inter-Departmental Committee to Review Financial Structure and Financial Objectives of Australia Post and Telecom. To review the existing legislative provisions relating to the financial objectives of Australia Post and Telecom and the relationship between those authorities and the Government. Inter-departmental committee-the Telecommunications Advisory Committee. The Telecommunications Advisory Committee is established to facilitate development and co-ordination of telecommunications policy and to exchange infomation and advise on telecommunications matters affecting more than one Commonwealth organisation and makes recommendations thereon to the parties concerned. It exchanges important information relating to telecommunications service policy and plans between members as it affects the functional interests of these members. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on National Transmitters. The IDC has been established to review periodically the arrangements for the design, procurement, installation, operation and maintenance of national transmitters, and to report to the Minister for Communications if change is recommended. 1 (b) Inter-departmental committees participated in or chaired by instrumentalities under my control. Inter-Departmental Committee to Review Financial Structure and Financial Objectives of Australia Post and Telecom. Australia Post and Telecom. The Emergency Broadcasting Committee ABC participates. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on National Transmitters. ABC participates. Question No. 906 Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) Why does the Division of Mineral Physics of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation enter into marketing arrangements with overseas owned firms for the marketing for geophysical and related mineral exploration equipment developed by the department, when there are Australian-owned firms available with international connections that are capable of, and would be interested in the international marketing of these items on behalf of CSIRO. (2) Is it a fact that (a) the department licenses Australian-owned companies to manufacture these items, but uses American companies to market the products and (b) this practice is evidenced by the sirotem Elecromagnetic Unit marketed by the United States of America owned geometrics and the sirolog borehole logging probe to be marketed by the United States of America owned Sie-Geosource. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) CSIRO has not entered into marketing arrangements with overseas-owned firms for marketing of geophysical and related mineral exploration equipment developed by its Division of Mineral Physics. (2) (a) CSIRO is anxious to assist high technology manufacturing industry in Australia. Because Australia represents a small market, it is important to have access to the large overseas markets and this may on occasions be best achieved by CSIRO's Australian licensee using an overseas-owned marketing company. Where such a business arrangement appears likely to be effective in terms of technology transfer and benefit to Australian industry, CSIRO would accept it as a business decision properly made by its licensee. (b) The sirotem technology is licensed to Mineral Control Instrumentation Pty Ltd. That company is Australian owned and manufactures in Adelaide. It has chosen to market overseas in Adelaide. It has chosen to market overseas through the USA-owned geometrics group. CSIRO endorses the overall approach of its licencsee in its commitment to both development of the technology and manufacture in Australia, and also to effective overseas marketing and servicing . (c) The sirolog technology was jointly licensed to Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL) and Geoex Pty Ltd, both Australian-owned companies based in Adelaide. Geoex Pty Ltd has ceased trading and AMDEL is understood to be now seeking replacement for Geoex to participate in the technical and commercial assessment of the sirolog technology. It is understood that discussions have taken place between AMDEL and Sie-Geosource, a USA owned group. Question No. 921 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has he released Mr 'Chicka' Dixon from his duties in Aboriginal Hostels Ltd to take up full time duties as Chairman of the Aboriginal Arts Board; if so, (a) when and (b) why was he chosen. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: No. Question No. 151 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Can he indicate (a) how many nursing homes there are in the electoral division of Perth, (b) what level of subsidy is given to these nursing homes, and (c) how is any subsidy determined. (2) What (a) funding is allocated for domiciliary care in the electoral division of Perth and (b) are the criteria for receipt of domiciliary care assistance. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Commonwealth Government provides assistance on behalf of patients accommodated in nursing homes under two Acts, the National Health Act, 1953 and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, 1974. In the electoral division of Perth there are 20 nursing homes. Fourteen homes are approved under the National Health Act and six under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. (b) For the 12 months ended 30 June 1983, the Commonwealth paid $11,771,748 to these nursing homes of which $7,062,290 was on behalf of patients in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act and $4,709,458 to deficit financed nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. (c) The level of subsidy is determined as follows: Nursing Homes Approved under the National Health Act The benefits paid on behalf of patients accommodated in the nursing homes operating under the National Health Act are determined on the basis of the individual approved fees of these homes up to a predetermined maximum rate for each State. The Commonwealth Government annually reviews the maximum rate of benefit by carrying out a survey of the approved fees for participating, non-government, nursing homes approved under the National Health Act in each State. The benefit rate is then set, normally to operate from November, at a level which, when combined with the statutory minimum patient contribution, covers the approved fees of 70 per cent of beds in participating, non-government, nursing homes in each State. The minimum statutory patient contribution referred to is set at 87. 5 per cent of the single rate pension plus supplementary assistance. The maximum rates of benefit applying during the 12 month period ended 30 June 1983 for Western Australia were: 1 July to 3 November 1982 $18.55 per day 4 November 1982 to 30 June 1983 $21.65 per day The current rate of benefit which has applied from 3 November 1983 is $23.40 per day. The benefit rates referred to above are paid in respect of ordinary care patients. An additional benefit of $6 per day is paid on behalf of patients approved as being in need of and receiving extensive nursing home care. Nursing Homes Approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act The Nursing Homes Assistance Act makes provision for nursing homes conducted by religious, charitable and other non-profit organisations to be funded under the deficit financing arrangements. Organisations seeking financial assistance under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are required to enter into a legally binding agreement with the Commonwealth. The agreement provides for the Commonwealth to meet the approved operating deficit of these nursing homes, after taking into account income received by the home. The level of funding varies between homes and to a large extent reflects the operation and level of services provided by individual homes. (2) (a) The forms of domiciliary care funded under my portfolio are the home nursing subsidy scheme and the domiciliary nursing care benefit. Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme There are three home nursing services operating in the Perth metropolitan area which are subsidised by the Commonwealth under the home nursing subsidy scheme. However none of these operates exclusively in the Perth electorate but all three would provide services in the area. Information on the amount of funding specifically in the Perth electorate is not available. However, the total Commonwealth subsidy to these three organisations for 1982-83 was: Silver Chain Nursing Association (State-wide) $3,473,343 King Edmund Memorial Hospital (Perth metropolitan) $23,670 Quadriplegic Centre (Perth metropolitan) $15,780 Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit As at 24 November 1983 there were 298 beneficiaries receiving payment of the domiciliary nursing care benefit in the electorate of Perth in respect of whom an estimated $12,516 is payable per fortnight or $325,000 per annum. Deficit Funding of Approved Services In addition to the above two programs, ongoing financial assistance is provided to day care centres associated with nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act towards the provision of paramedical services such as physiotherapy et cetera to aged persons residing in the local community. In the electorate of Perth, there are three such centres and in 1982-83 the Commonwealth provided some $928,720 towards their operation. This amount is included in the overall amount paid to nursing homes in part 1 (b) of this answer. Domiciliary Care Services funded by the Department of Social Security through the States Grants (Home Care) Act In Western Australia, this legislation is administered by the State Department of Public Health and provides for: The Commonwealth to contribute up to two-thirds of the capital cost of senior citizens' centres on a $2:$1 basis with State or local government funds. Subsidy on a $1:$1 basis to the States towards the cost of providing approved home care services. The Commonwealth to pay one-half of the salary of welfare officers employed at, or in conjunction with, senior citizens' centres. The following projects in the electorate of Perth have received capital funding and assistance under this legislation since 1973-74: Common- Senior Capital wealth citizens' centres Location cost subsidy $ $ City of Stirling Dianella 173,310 115,450 City of Stirling Maylands 15,384 5,128 City of Stirling Inglewood 15,384 5,128 Shire of Bayswater Morley 58,619 39,080 For 1982-83, the expenditure in Western Australia, for welfare officers was $ 195,196 and for home care services $1,199,752. A breakup of expenditure of these items on an electorate basis is not available. (b) The criteria for receipt of the forms of domiciliary care assistance mentioned, are as follows: Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme The subsidy is paid to approved home nursing services and is based on the number of registered nurses engaged in home nursing duties. A condition of subsidy is that the State and/or local government provide at least matching assistance. To be eligible for subsidy, an organisation must: conduct a home nursing service providing the professional services of nurses visiting the places of residence of their patients; be carried on otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to its individual members; be in receipt of State and/or local government financial assistance specifically for the operation of the home nursing service; not be conducted by a State Government except in the case of a service controlled by a public hospital. Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit The eligibility requirements for this benefit are that: the beneficiary must provide care of a continuing nature to the patient; the patient and the beneficiary must reside together in the same private residence; the patient must be at least 16 years of age and be suffering from a disease, illness or disability which would justify admission to a nursing home if the care at home was not available; regular professional nursing care must be needed by, and provided to, the patient. Home Help Service Scheme Home help in Western Australia is provided by community based organisations with the aid of State and Commonwealth subsidies through the State Department of Public Health. Home help is generally available to perform household tasks such as cooking, shopping, laundry and general household cleaning. Social workers are available in some areas to provide advice and counselling. Other services available in some areas include occupational therapy, podiatry and equipment libraries, for example, walking frames, et cetera. Welfare Officers Their main functions are to ensure the development, co-ordination and continuing provision of the most appropriate welfare services to meet the needs of the aged in the area including the following: determining the needs of the aged population and developing services and facilities to meet those needs; liaison with the committees of the senior citizens' centre(s) and service clubs for the purpose of establishing or extending the centres' service and facilities . Question No. 189 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: What (a) funding is allocated for domiciliary care in the electoral division of Moore and (b) are the criteria for receipt of domiciliary care assistance. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) the forms of domiciliary care funded under my portfolio are the home nursing subsidy scheme and the domiciliary nursing care benefit. Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme Information as to expenditure on the home nursing subsidy scheme is not available by electoral divisions. However, the Silver Chain Nursing Association which operates in most Western Australian electorates, including Moore, received $3,473,343 in 1982-83 under that scheme. Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit As at 24 November 1983, there were 225 beneficiaries receiving payment of the domiciliary nursing care benefit in the electorate of Moore in respect of whom an estimated $9,450 is payable per fortnight or $245,700 per annum. Domiciliary Care Services funded by the Department of Social Security through the States Grants (Home Care) Act In Western Australia, this legislation is administered by the State Department of Public Health and provides for: The Commonwealth to contribute up to two-thirds of the capital cost of senior citizens' centres on a $2:$1 basis with State or local government funds. Subsidy on a $1:$1 basis to the States towards the cost of providing approved home care services. The Commonwealth to pay one-half of the salary of welfare officers employed at, or in conjunction with, senior citizens' centres. The following projects in the electorate of Moore have received capital funding and assistance under this legislation since 1979-80: Common- Senior Capital wealth Citizens' Centres Location Cost Subsidy $ $ Projects Completed- Shire of Kalamunda Kalamunda 384,731 256,487 Town of Northam Northam 1,031 687 Shire of Wanneroo Wanneroo 212,914 141,943 District 1) Current Projects- Swan District S.C.C. Inc. Swan 60,000 40,000 Shire of Wanneroo Girrawheen 234,384 156,256 For 1982-83, the expenditure in Western Australia, for welfare officers was $ 195,196 and for home care services $1,199,752. A breakup of expenditure of these items on an electorate basis is not available. (b) The criteria for receipt of the forms of domiciliary care assistance mentioned, are as follows: Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme The subsidy is paid to approved home nursing services and is based on the number of registered nurses engaged in home nursing duties. A condition of subsidy is that the State and/or local government provide at least matching assistance. To be eligible for subsidy, an organisation must: conduct a home nursing service providing the professional services of nurses visiting the places of residence of their patients; be carried on otherwise than for the purpose of profit or gain to its individual members; be in receipt of State and/or local government financial assistance specifically for the operation of the home nursing service; not be conducted by a State Government except in the case of a service controlled by a public hospital. Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit The eligibility requirements for this benefit are that: the beneficiary must provide care of a continuing nature to the patient; the patient and the beneficiary must reside together in the same private residence; the patient must be at least 16 years of age and be suffering from a disease, illness or disability which would justify admission to a nursing home if the care at home was not available; regular professional nursing care must be needed by, and provided to, the patient. Home Help Service Scheme Home help in Western Australia is provided by community based organisations with the aid of State and Commonwealth subsidies through the State Department of Public Health. Home help is generally available to perform household tasks such as cooking, shopping, laundry and general household cleaning. Social workers are available in some areas to provide advice and counselling. Other services available in some areas include occupational therapy, podiatry and equipment libraries e.g. walking frames etc. Welfare Officers Their main functions are to ensure the development co-ordination and continuing provision of the most appropriate welfare services to meet the needs of the aged in the area including the following: determining the needs of the aged population and developing services and facilities to meet those needs; liaison with the committees of the senior citizens' centre(s) and service clubs for the purpose of establishing or extending the centres' service and facilities . Question No. 387 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Will he table the advice of the specialist colleges formulated at their meeting on 8 October 1980 together with any other briefing material used by the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee (MBSRC) to help it decide on the rational use of screening tests by orthomolecular practitioners. (2) Was access to any of this briefing material refused by his Department to Dr C. M. Reading who sought it to prepare a rebuttal to the advice of the colleges. (3) Did the Committee's Secretary, Mr P. D. Willems, in a letter to Dr Reading state that without knowledge of the colleges' findings it would not have been possible for any individual or group to discuss or make submissions on those findings and that, as Dr Reading did not ask the Committee the questions which he directed to Dr L. J. O'Keefe of the Department of Health in a letter of 20 October 1980, the Committee could not give any answers. (4) Did Mr Willems also state that (a) Dr Reading's submission was not shown to the Minister and (b) the Minister was provided with a copy of a letter of 30 November 1980 from the Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill which had been presented by Dr Reading to the MBSRC meeting on 3 December 1980. (5) Was the letter of 16 April 1981 from the Deputy Ombudsman, Mr A. G. Kerr, to Dr Reading correct in stating that the Department said Dr O'Keefe did not send Dr Reading a written reply because the points raised by Dr Reading had been discussed in general terms at the MBSRC meeting of 3 December 1980 and that it had, however, provided Mr Kerr with information on the 7 matters on which Dr Reading had queried Dr O'Keefe. (6) Did his predecessor write to Dr Reading on 10 November 1982 stating that Dr Reading should write to the colleges for the information he had sought for use in preparing a properly based rebuttal of the colleges' advice, required for his address to the MBSRC meeting on 3 December 1980. (7) Is he able to say whether the colleges declined to provide the information to Dr Reading on the grounds that the matter was sub judice; if so, does this objection still hold; if not, did the person adjudicated against have full access to the evidence and the rights of reply before the adjudication. (8) Did his predecessor see the submissions of Dr Reading and of the Support for Orthomolecular Medicine Association before issuing Ministerial Directive 234 . (9) Did his predecessor advise the member for Canberra on 16 August 1982 that orthomolecular medicine has as its basis the theory that many disorders affecting the central nervous system are the result of excessive or deficient intake of heavy metals or vitamins, allergic cerebral conditions or autoimmune disease, that numerous and costly tests are used in diagnosis and during treatment and that some practitioners may also have similar tests done on all members of the patient's family. (10) Did Dr Reading define his theory and practice differently to his predecessor on 8 April 1981 without rebuttal by the Department of Health; if so, has this difference been discussed by the Minister's predecessors, the Minister, or any of his advisers with (a) Dr Reading (b) representatives of the specialist colleges, or (c) an allergist, immunologist or biochemist familiar with the disciplines listed by Dr Reading in his letter to the MBSRC of 16 June 1981. (11) On what evidence or under what guidelines other than the definition referred to in part (9), does his Department decide that in a particular case tests are indicative of the practice of orthomolecular medicine and not essential for the management of the medical conditions. (12) Has Dr Reading been given prompt and reasonable opportunity to establish criteria for essential tests in particular cases; if so, can the dates of the relevant correspondence be given to assist him to put his case to the colleges. (13) Has he, his predecessor or a departmental officer been reprimanded for a prima facie breach of freedom of information law in connection with the above matters. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has written to the specialist colleges involved in this matter seeking their approval to the tabling of the advice forwarded to my Department. If they have no objections I will table that advice together with the other briefing material used by the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (5) Yes. The relevant extract of the departmental advice to Mr Kerr on this matter stated: '. . . Dr Reading also places considerable emphasis on the fact that he did not receive a reply to his letter of 20 October 1980 to Dr O'Keefe and alleges that the lack of answers to the questions he raised had jeopardised the chances of the Royal Colleges giving a favourable opinion on the practice of orthomolecular medicine. The meeting of the Colleges was held on the 8 October 1980, some 2 weeks before Dr Reading wrote his letter to Dr O'Keefe. When arrangements were completed for the Medical Benefits Schedule Revision Committee (MBSRC) to consider orthomolecular medicine, Dr O'Keefe did reply to Dr Reading on 21 November 1980 and advised him to that effect. He also informed him that he was to be invited to attend the MBSRC meeting. Dr O'Keefe also indicated that he would be pleased to answer Dr Reading's queries at that meeting. It was considered that these matters could be more easily resolved in the context of the MBSRC meeting rather than by correspondence. Dr Reading did not respond to this letter but attended the meeting of the MBSRC on 3 December 1980. Dr O'Keefe who is a member of the MBSRC, was also in attendance at that meeting. Although the points raised in Dr Reading's letter were not considered seriatum at the MBSRC meeting, they were discussed generally and the opportunity was given to Dr Reading to raise these points or any other matters he so desired. In the circumstances it was not considered necessary to make any further reply to his letter of 20 October 1980.' The Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman was also provided with brief comments on each of the seven points raised by Dr Reading in his letter of 20 October 1980. (6) I am advised that the answer to the question is that Mr MacKellar did write to Dr Reading. (7) The information available to myself and my Department indicates merely that Dr Reading unsuccessfully approached the Colleges for a full report on the evidence considered at their meeting on 8 October 1980. My Department has no knowledge as to why the information was refused. (8) I am advised that Mr MacKellar did not see the submissions referred to. (9) I am advised that the answer to the question is yes. (10) Mr MacKellar, the Minister at the time, did not attempt to define orthomolecular medicine; nor has the Department of Health. The Department went as far as describing the practice of orthomolecular medicine in a circular to the medical benefits funds (MB Circular 234) by way of background when announcing that the tests associated with orthomolecular medicine were in the health screening category. (11) I refer the honourable member to my predecessor's answer to his earlier question (No. 4683) published in Hansard of 21 October 1982 (page 2458). (12) Dr Reading is being assisted as far as practicable. He requested a decision be made in regard to a particular patient on 16 December 1980. A reply was forwarded to Dr Reading on 3 March 1981. On 21 July 1982 Dr Reading requested a decision concerning diagnostic tests for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). At that time my predecessor, Mr Carlton, was investigating orthomolecular medicine and met with Dr Reading to discuss the matter in detail. I understand Mr Carlton did not respond to Dr Reading's request before 4 March 1983. I have subsequently provided a decision to Mr R. J. Brown, M.P., member for Hunter, following representations he made on behalf of one of Dr Reading's patients allowing the payment of medical benefits for specific diagnostic tests for SLE. (13) No. Question No. 774 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No alternative mailing arrangements were introduced by either my Department or the Capital Territory Health Commission. The Health Insurance Commission arranged for one load of mail to be sent to Sydney by courier for distribution by a mailing firm on 22 September 1983. The cost was $207.32. Hospital payments were sent to Sydney and Melbourne via the existing courier service in the period 28 September 1983 to 11 October 1983, but there was no extra cost involved. Question No. 952 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for Commonwealth employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray, if not, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. (b) No-the Department has no facilities in the division of Murray in which community employment program participants could be employed.