Monday, 8 October 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the intimidatory remarks of the Premier of New South Wales in relation to the evidence being given to the Senate Inquiry by Mr Clarrie Briese, the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales; (2) notes with concern this further example of the Premier's increasingly irrational and improper conduct in relation to certain matters pertaining to the administration of justice in New South Wales, and (3) expresses its concern at the implication for the administration of justice in New South Wales including those areas comprising federal jurisdiction of New South Wales courts arising from the Premier's conduct. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses concern that a pensioner couple living on a farm worth $200,000, with a house valued at $50,000, would be ineligible for the pension under the assets test, whilst a pensioner couple living in a city with a house valued at $ 200,000 and other assets of $50,000 would be eligible for a full pension, and (2) demands that the Prime Minister, and all members of his Government, refrain from using the words fair and equitable in relation to the pensions assets test. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Government has- (a) introduced an assets test; (b) increased tax on superannuation; (c) increased five fold the income tax of a pensioner earning $20 a week; and (d) reduced from 60 days to 35 days the time all but the acutely ill can stay in hospital without being charged, and (2) calls on the Government to stop ripping into Australia's elderly citizens simply to finance big spending programs while posturing as a friend. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will second: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to indicate when they intend to call on for debate, notice of motion No. 1 for Monday 8 October 1984, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Denison and seconded by the honourable Member for O'Connor. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that there is an implied threat by the New South Wales Attorney- General Mr Landa to the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales, reported on 12 September 1984 and confirms that such a threat amounts to contempt, or breach of Parliamentary privilege, against this Parliament; and (2) condemns- (a) the attempt to interfere with evidence about to be provided by a witness, before a committee of this Parliament, and (b) the overt threat by the Premier of New South Wales to the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales, Mr Briese, regarding his future employment, as an outright attempt to interfere with a witness currently before a committee of the Parliament. Mr HOWARD —Can the Treasurer assure the House that details of applications for foreign bank licences will be kept strictly confidential whilst the Government makes a decision on them and not disclosed to any body or person outside the Government or the Reserve Bank of Australia? Mr KEATING —I am not sure of the point of the honourable gentleman's question because I think most of the bank groups which have an interest in Australia have already expressed such an interest. I do not think one would need to be an insider to list the institutions which have already made approaches. I am on the record as having met many of these institutions. When I was in the United States of America recently I invited any institution interested in making an application to listen to what I had to say at the Australian Embassy in Washington, and many turned up. The institutions which did appear there were reported upon. So in that sense I could not give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an assurance that those institutions alone know that they are interested. However, I might say that the details of their applications and of the proposals they have put will be confidential to the Government and the Reserve Bank until announced. Mr MOUNTFORD —Has the Treasurer's attention been drawn to predictions by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government will bring down a harsh mini -Budget next March or April? Is there any factual basis for such predictions or do they simply represent another attempt by the Opposition to side-track attention from the Government's successful economic management? Mr KEATING —One is always interested to hear the Opposition state so firmly that the opposing Party will be in government after the next election and that budgetary policy will be in the hands of a Labor government. Let me make it clear that the purpose of a mini-Budget is either to change the direction of fiscal policy substantially or to change it absolutely. This Government has no need to change its fiscal policy in any way, much less in a major sense. My colleague the Minister for Finance gave an answer last week which I thought would have silenced the pathetic interventions on this matter of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Minister pointed out that the Prime Minister had announced just after the Budget this year that some of the expenditure data and procedures would be brought forward next year so as to undertake an expenditure review of the normal Budget processes earlier than perhaps we were able to achieve this year. I repeat that the 1984-85 Budget is in tune with the economy. It was designed for the state of the economy, as the success of the 1983-84 Budget left the economy in the transition to a pick up in private investment and consumption. We have seen adequate data since the Budget has been produced, including in the market-place, on interest rates and retail sales and a range of other indicators , to show that the Budget strategy is working quite well. Of course, in that Budget we have forecast 5.25 per cent inflation, 5 per cent non-farm growth in the economy and a 5 per cent pick-up in investment. Hence there is no need from the Government's point of view to contemplate in any way a mini-Budget. What we are really seeing here are the thought processes of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who, as Treasurer in 1978, ripped away the tax cuts which were promised by his party in 1977. He said, revealingly, in the House a couple of weeks ago that he was able to take away the tax cuts because he had not given them; he was not the Treasurer. The fact that his Party gave them, that he promised them during the election campaign and then swept them away five months later is taken care of in terms of his morality by his saying: 'I never gave them in the first place, so I could take them back'. If Australia were to have the unfortunate experience of a Peacock-Howard-led government after the next poll, the tax cuts given by this Government would be swept away. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made it quite plain a couple of weeks before the Budget that, given a choice between tax cuts and a lower Budget deficit, he would have no tax cuts. It is quite obvious that the tax cuts would disappear. It is also obvious that a coalition government would destroy Medicare , terminate our jobs program, introduce new taxes, attempt to finance the irresponsible parish pump expenditures promised by the Leader of the Opposition as well as destroy the prices and incomes accord. In other words, the Opposition has learned no lessons from its dismal experience. We are hearing predictions about mini-Budgets from the mini-Budget specialist, the honourable member for Bennelong, the person who presided over the worst economic performance in this country since the Great Depression, with a doubling of unemployment within a 12- month period, record interest rates and record inflation. He is now telling this Government how we ought to be implementing economic policies. The Government has no plans for a mini-Budget. There will be no mini-Budget. The fiscal policy is on track and the economy is growing very nicely, thank you. We are getting plaudits from the business community not only in Australia but also in the rest of the world and we do not need the Opposition's advice. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Treasurer a further question which follows the earlier question he answered. Did the Treasurer meet on 7 June representatives of the Australian Bank Employees Union and the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association? Did the union representatives ask him for the right to scrutinise applications for foreign bank licences? Did the Treasurer indicate that there would be no particular problem, provided confidentiality was right? Did he also indicate that he did not want any cowboys coming into Australia in the form of foreign banks? Indeed, did the Treasurer at that meeting give those union representatives a cast-iron guarantee that any foreign banks allowed into Australia would have to be closed union shops? Mr KEATING —I did meet the bank unions, although I am not sure of the date. Mr Moore —Oh! Mr KEATING —It was reported. Do not members of the Opposition read the newspapers? I met with them and with the Australian Council of Trade Unions for four hours. They did propose that they scrutinise the bank applications, which I found to be totally unacceptable, and I rejected that course. I indicated to them that as far as the Government was concerned we wanted competition in the banking sector, we would take on board institutions which were of undoubted financial strength and we would expect that the union practices which prevail at the moment in terms of employment in the banking system would be at least the standards which we would expect from any potential applicant. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the difficulties currently being experienced by parts of the sugar industry, particularly in the super-wet belt? What steps is the Government taking to address these problems? Mr KERIN —The honourable member for Leichhardt focuses on a question to which the Government is giving considerable time and attention. I believe that the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert have paid more attention to this industry than any other two backbenchers in this House for a long, long time. Similarly, in terms of the number of Queensland Cane Growers Council meetings and mill committee meetings I have attended, it is obvious that I, as Minister for Primary Industry in this Government, have gained a better acquaintance with the industry's problems than has any other Federal Minister. The previous Government treated the industry's requests for assistance with contempt. I also went to Geneva twice with the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries to see whether, together, we could get an international sugar agreement. Last year, after looking at all the requests of the industry-I think those requests would now amount to about $400m if we added them up-the Commonwealth and Queensland governments got together to formulate a package of measures relating to rural adjustment Part B funds. Those funds were spent by about the middle of this year. When we negotiated the Commonwealth-State domestic sugar agreement it was agreed, after a lot of discussion with the industry-particularly the four major industry groups-that the industry itself would institute a wide-ranging review of the industry's production, marketing and regulatory mechanisms. Last week I met the industry leadership in Canberra and was very heartened by the progress being made by the industry itself in reviewing all its institutions. The industry leaders are engaged in a study of their own industry that will, I think, put that industry in a far better and more flexible shape to deal with problems in the future. The industry is working on legislation going back to 1915 and 1933, and the industry understands and respects the fact that times have changed and that there is a need to look at some of the fundamental institutions. The Queensland Government is approaching the Commonwealth and I hope to be talking to Mr Turner, the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, as soon as possible to see what views he has on the industry's own arrangements and requests for assistance in the immediate short term because we believe that the industry's problems go beyond a short term liquidity crisis. In negotiations over the last year the Commonwealth and State governments have reached a wide measure of agreement on the facts about the industry, and that has clearly indicated to us that the problem now facing about 10 per cent of the people in the industry relates to the payment of money for interest on debts, some of which flow from the high period of 1980-81 when farmers bought out other farmers or went heavily into capitalisation and machinery. We are getting a better picture of the industry's problems. As I said , I hope to be seeing Mr Turner in the near future so that the Commonwealth and State governments can work together on the industry's problems. Seeing that his Government spent some $20m on the industry with respect to rural adjustment part B funds, I would be interested to know whether he has knowledge to impart on what is the best way to go with that industry. Mr PORTER —My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer him to Friday's ambivalent joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Western Australia. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position on the application of the five non-negotiable principles for Aboriginal land rights and , in particular, does the Federal Government still intend to enact overriding legislation in accordance with those principles to provide Aboriginal veto over mining on Aboriginal land? Mr HOLDING —I am surprised that the honourable gentleman regards the statement as ambivalent. I thought it was perfectly clear. Mr Tuckey —Yes, it said nothing. Mr HOLDING —I realise that the honourable gentleman believes that any problem with indigenous people can be solved with an iron bar. We do not share that view . The statement that was made followed an offer made by the Premier of Western Australia, which the Prime Minister and I were glad to endorse, whereby the Commonwealth and a senior officer of my Department on a full time basis would participate in the drafting of land rights legislation in Western Australia. I believe that that is a very significant development. It is the first occasion on which any State Premier concerned to draft land rights legislation has approached not merely the Commonwealth Government but also mining and industry groups, the pastoral industry, and even the Opposition in Western Australia, for the purpose of trying to produce legislation that will encompass the range of attitudes that have been expressed on this issue. The Commonwealth Government and I welcome that offer. We will participate fully in the development of that legislation. Let me be perfectly candid about it: As between the Commonwealth and all States there are differing approaches. I have always made it clear that we are concerned to see that those differing approaches among the States are developed as far as they can be. I am not going on the basis of the arrangements that have been reached. It would be quite improper for me to prejudge the legislation to be introduced by the Burke Government. I can understand why the Opposition is concerned about this, because the real difference between it and the Hawke Labor Government is this: As a result of the recent Fraser Government the people had bequeathed to them in Aboriginal affairs the situation at Noonkanbah where the Western Australian Government acted in a way which brought great problems to the mining industry, great deprivation to Aboriginal people, and shame on Australia in its handling of these problems. We will not go down that track. The honourable gentleman, when he addresses these questions, should first tell the House the Opposition's position on this matter. Does it oppose land rights legislation? Does it oppose the Commonwealth participating in drawing up legislation with the Western Australian Government, whose prime concern is to grant land rights to the Aboriginal people of Western Australia, who at this stage, after years of Liberal administration, have absolutely nothing? That is the purpose of the exercise. At this stage I suggest that the honourable gentleman, before worrying about our position or that of the Western Australian Government, tell the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia exactly how he stands in respect of his position, which is simply that Aboriginal people, so long deprived of any rights at all in Western Australia, will not get anything from the Liberal Opposition in Western Australia. I am very confident of the outcome of this exercise. I can understand the concern of honourable gentlemen opposite, who cannot sit down with Mr Hassell because this adolescent shadow Minister says in Canberra that he supports land rights but in Western Australia says that he opposes them. That is not a position which ought to commend itself to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer the Treasurer to recent proposals circulated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and next Opposition Leader supporting a flat rate of income tax. Is the Government considering the introduction of a flat rate of income tax of 30 per cent? Mr KEATING —I was amused over the weekend to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put out a Press statement about a 'non-political' study by members of the new Right from Monash University. It was so non-political that the Deputy Leader was able to release it before the Parliamentary Library even received it. I would have thought that the expression 'non-political' in the Press statement gave his hand away anyway. The paper proposed a flat rate of tax. The Deputy Leader quite dishonestly lifted things from the paper and recommended the paper. He did not highlight one of the principal features, that is, a flat rate of tax. It is part of the desperate tactics of the Opposition to refer to such papers. The paper was prepared by Michael Porter and others at Monash University, including people supporting that group such as John Hyde, Hugh Morgan, Geoffrey Blainey and others-the new Right. But these are not new policies. Basically, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going back to the leadership of the Queensland National Party-the Joh and Flo show-on a 30 per cent flat rate tax. A flat rate tax of 30 per cent would cost revenue this year about $4 billion. There is no point in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition racing around and saying that he will introduce a broadly based consumption tax to cover the shortfall in revenue because to recover about $4 billion would mean a consumer price index effect from indirect taxes of the order of six percentage points. So we would be well and truly back up the inflationary ladder to the sorts of levels we inherited from the former Government if the Deputy Leader's policies on a consumption tax of that kind to cover the revenue shortfall from a reduction in tax of that order of magnitude were to be undertaken. Another thing that the paper advocates is a reduction in the tax free threshold to $4,000 per annum. I would be interested in the views of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about a reduction in the tax free threshold to $4,000 per annum. That would lift the tax for pensioners to about $238 a year or nearly $5 a week. What the paper is looking at in that respect is an increase in tax for pensioners, the unemployed and the disabled. We should bear in mind that this Government's Budget exempted them in the tax cut arrangements we introduced in August. We will have no bar of crocodile tears from the Opposition about lower income families because the paper which the Deputy Leader circulates basically says, amongst other things, that pensions and benefits are too high. It argues that they are a disincentive to work. The Deputy Leader endorses the paper strongly. He says: 'You can come and pick it up from my office'. The paper says that there is a disincentive to work and that pensions and benefits are too high . The Deputy Leader is on the same kick as the honourable member for Hume, who spent a week on his bicycle on the dole and tried to indicate that pensions and benefits were higher than they ought to be. This Government has no intention of adopting a flat rate of tax. I indicate also the dishonesty in the treatment of this paper by the Deputy Leader. He did not draw attention to one part of it which I will quote. It specifically acknowledges that the Budget tax cuts 'reduce the tax bill faced by people at all income levels'. We did not hear that on AM this morning or see it in the Deputy Leader's Press statement. It also acknowledges that: . . . by contributing to the maintenance of the 'Accord' the tax cuts assist in restraining wages and thereby inflation, and in restoring profitability in the private sector . . . Despite the shortcomings of the paper it recognises the tax cuts in this Budget all round for all taxpayers. It says the Budget contributes to the maintenance of the prices and incomes accord and lower inflation. What the Deputy Leader did not indicate is that two and a quarter million Australians have a lower marginal tax rate as a result of this Budget. What he never indicated and fails to indicate when he talks about marginal tax rates is that the average rate of tax for all taxpayers is down because there is now a 25 per cent rate step between $ 4,595 and $12,500. He totally failed to mention that there is another rate step of 25 per cent between $4,595 and $12,500. Let me sum up by saying that it was very interesting for the Deputy Leader to be embracing and handing out a paper by this group from the new right advocating a flat rate tax. We will then hear about his consumption taxes to pay for these things and their massive inflationary effects because there is no way that the unions will talk to him about any discounting. He does not believe in the accord ; he would destroy it. Also it is very instructive that this paper indicates and acknowledges that there is a tax cut for all categories of taxpayers as a result of this Budget and indicates by implication, therefore, that the average rate of tax is down. It is about time that the Deputy Leader started to indicate the facts as they are; that there is a real tax cut, that average rates of tax are down and that all taxpayers receive benefits from this Budget. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. I would not go to the Prime Minister for a reliable answer on this matter. I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question relating to the Bill he introduced on 4 October 1984 to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Can he give the House any further information regarding his proposed amendment to section 11 of the principal Act as contained in clause 5 of the Bill and his amendment to section 18 as contained in clause 8? Are these amendments directed to limiting the potential for political manipulation of the Authority's functions? Mr PEACOCK —I am very grateful once again to the honourable member for directing a question on the amendments that the Opposition has introduced to the National Crime Authority legislation. The reality is that it is particularly apt that this question should be asked today because of the bullying and blatant political remarks, and the political manipulation of the administration of justice in New South Wales by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran. We have alleged for a long while that such interference-and such interference politically-into the administration of justice was occurring and there is manifest evidence out of the Premier's own words. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I cannot hear the answer of the Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I appreciate the comments from honourable members but it is necessary for me to hear the answer to see whether it is in order with parliamentary procedures. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The relevance of that is, of course, that one of the major flaws of the current legislation is that it allows the National Crime Authority to be subject to political manipulation. Firstly, the Authority may only investigate using its coercive powers upon a reference being provided to it by a State or Federal Minister via the Inter-Governmental Committee. For political purposes the Authority could be refused a reference and its investigation so circumscribed. Secondly, the Federal Minister may give directions to the Authority as to how it is to conduct investigations with respect to a particular case. Therefore, my Bill, if enacted, will completely divorce the Authority from political interference in these respects and, if enacted, that Bill will give the Authority power to investigate of its own volition any Federal offence-- Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not do so to disrupt the Leader of the Opposition's flow, because it is interesting. On several occasions we have had raised in the House this question of asking questions on Bills. There have been several interpretations. The last interpretation I recollect is that there is a requirement on questioning a person with a private member's Bill before the House that the argument should be concerned strictly with the detail of what is contained in the Bill, not an argument about its effect or a contrasting of a provision of the Bill with other prevailing practices or other legislation. Mr Sinclair —He is hurting, isn't he, Kim? Are you Wran's man too? Mr Beazley —Oh, it does not worry me at all. I raise the point of order so that we can get the precedent quite clearly established for future reference. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the Minister for raising the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order. I do not agree that there are varying interpretations. The Standing Orders principally direct attention to the nature of questions. Questions may be asked of a member in charge of a Bill or a motion. One of the difficulties has always been whether the member, when asked that question, is anticipating debate. In this case we have a Bill introduced into the Parliament, a second reading speech has been made and a member has sought information about specific clauses of that legislation. The question, therefore, is in order. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was saying that, if enacted, my Bill will give the Authority power to investigate of its own volition any Federal offence and abrogate the Minister's power to give directions with respect to a particular case. There are real problems and it is not sufficient to say, as the Government says, that although there is potential for political interference we would not do that, because while there is any potential for political interference there will always be cynics-perhaps today they are realists-who suggest that a particular investigation, its conduct or the failure to investigate were politically motivated. As a consequence, public confidence in the Authority and its ability to combat organised crime will be undermined. This , of course, is certainly not an abstract fear. It was this concern with political interference in the administration of justice and in the investigation of crime which led me to move the amendments in the Bill to which the honourable member refers. When I say that it is not an abstract fear, I point out that only yesterday we witnessed the Premier of New South Wales, the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Wran, seeking to pressure a witness before a Senate inquiry because that witness-- Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The program indicates that this period of the Parliament is given to questions without notice. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly is reading from a prepared answer, are you satisfied that the question which has been asked of him by one of his own members is in fact a question without notice? Mr SPEAKER —I state in response to the honourable member for Hunter that over my 15 years in this Parliament I have watched Speakers wrestle with the difficulty of dorothy dixers and have never found one of them brave enough to state that such has occurred. I do not uphold the point of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said that only yesterday we witnessed the Premier of New South Wales and the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Wran, seeking to pressure a witness before a Senate inquiry because that witness had the temerity to give evidence which yet again has cast doubts upon the Premier's role in the manipulation of the New South Wales criminal justice system. Using the political powers entrusted to him, Mr Wran has sought to silence Mr Briese for his own purposes. Mr Wran has said that there is now a big question mark over Mr Briese. This relates directly to the question of political interference raised by the honourable member for Mitchell. I think we assume that, had Mr Briese given evidence of the type Mr Wran would have liked, there would be no question mark and his appointment as Chief Stipendiary Magistrate would certainly have been affirmed. Quite apart from any concern that the Opposition might have over a government applying a carrot and stick to a witness to manipulate his evidence, this episode renews the Opposition's fear that similar actions could be taken to circumscribe the National Crime Authority's operation. The fact is that the Senate may deal with Mr Wran's remarks-this is the real threat-- Mr Keogh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 145, which states that answers to questions of this nature must be relevant. I point out that what the Leader of the Opposition is speaking on has no relevance to the Bill that he introduced in the House last week. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. I was in fact about to interpose on relevance when the Leader of the Opposition did relate his remarks to that portion of the Bill he was questioned on. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was relating my answer to the sections which are directed to limiting the potential for political manipulation of the Authority's functions. We can see enough political manipulation in the administration of justice in New South Wales and we do not want that form of political manipulation so far as the National Crime Authority is concerned, and under the current legislation that could well occur. In conclusion I want to say this: In dealing with this political manipulation the Senate may take whatever action it wishes, but it is our duty to point out that the real threat in the remarks of the President of the Australian Labor Party and Premier of New South Wales represents a political interference in the administration of justice in New South Wales and there is an enormous investment of Federal jurisdiction in State courts. It may be going on in New South Wales; this House should be seeking to ensure that it does not go on so far as the National Crime Authority is concerned. As a consequence the Government ought to support the Opposition's Bills and, more to the point, so far as the weekend remarks are concerned, ensure that that degree of Federal jurisdiction invested in the courts in New South Wales not be permitted to be manipulated in the way it is by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, a man with whom this Prime Minister stands shoulder to shoulder. Mr CHARLES —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I remind him of his claim during Question Time last Friday that there were significant errors in the amendments to the National Crime Authority Act moved by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday. The Prime Minister will also recall that the Leader of the Opposition claimed that he had corrected those errors. I ask: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his assertion on Friday was in fact correct? Mr HAWKE —The question from the honourable member for Isaacs assumes added significance in the light of the wasted 12 minutes that we have just gone through. I pointed out to the House on Friday that the Government finds it very difficult to take the Opposition seriously in any respect when it is talking about fighting organised crime. I said that this view had been reinforced by the fact that the Opposition's amendments to the National Crime Authority Act on Thursday had sought to do these things, and the House will remember: Firstly, to amend two sections of the Act which did not exist-that is not a bad effort in itself-and, secondly, to amend a further section in a way which would make it absolutely meaningless. Honourable members will recall that, after I had made that startling revelation about just how much the Opposition was across this issue, the Leader of the Opposition strongly denied it. Honourable members will recall that he said: . . . the Prime Minister referred to amendments moved by me yesterday that did not even relate to the Act. That shows how much time the Prime Minister spends in the Parliament. That was the first draft by a staffer. I looked at the principal Act, saw that there was an error, changed it, and when I came into the House those proposed amendments were not even moved. Even at that stage, when one's reserves of charity should have been almost absolutely exhausted by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition, I nevertheless accepted his denial, but I was sufficiently prudent to have the matter checked. We were already aware that the Leader of the Opposition had corrected one error when he introduced his amendments. The Bill which he presented had a hand-written alteration to clause 12(b), which purported to amend section 25 of the Act. We were also aware that there were three errors in addition to that which I had identified and which were not corrected. The Leader of the Opposition in this House falsely denied committing them. That is not the end of the matter. Over the weekend we were able to identify yet another three errors, taking the total of errors committed by the Leader of the Opposition to six. I table a schedule of the errors made by the Leader of the Opposition-this man who is so deeply committed to the National Crimes Act that the amendments he brings in contain six errors. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Prime Minister wait until the House comes to order. Mr HAWKE —Obviously, Opposition members are wasting the whole of Question Time. We are aware, of course, that occasionally Bills are introduced into the House with errors in them. Minor mistakes are sometimes made. As everyone on this side of the House will appreciate, the basic point here is that the Leader of the Opposition completely denied being responsible for any errors and denied it in such a way that he appeared to be trying to suggest that the errors had been made on this side of the House. This is the kind of action by the Leader of the Opposition that clearly misleads the House-one can only come to the conclusion that he is deliberately misleading the House-and if it were undertaken by a Minister would lead to calls for his resignation from the other side. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is contemplating the last few weeks of his political career and that he is in a desperate position, but I observe finally that the events in this House last Friday demonstrate to the members of this House and the people of Australia that this Leader of the Opposition is as willing to make a false denial as he is to make a false accusation. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I say in passing that he would be the expert in false denials because what he alleged was that I introduced clauses to amend sections that did not exist. He knows that is not so and his references to any drafting changes that had to be made are not what he said last week. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr PEACOCK —Those comments are only by way of preface. Yes, I will get to my question. If that was the real reason why the Government was opposing the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill it would have some importance, but we know the real reason. I refer the Prime Minister to his support for Mr Wran's approach to the administration of justice in New South Wales-standing shoulder to shoulder with the Premier of New South Wales. Bearing in mind the political interference by Mr Wran in his threats against Mr Briese, does the Prime Minister confirm his confidence in Mr Wran's approach to the administration of justice in New South Wales, in view of the substantial investment of Federal jurisdiction in State courts. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition, in addressing this question to me, covered a range of matters, many of which obviously are concerned with the administration of matters peculiarly within the province of the New South Wales Government. He related those matters also to the well known position which I have adopted in respect of Mr Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales and the President of the Australian Labor Party. I have no difficulty in repeating in this House what I have had to say before regarding Mr Neville Wran; that he does have my support. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite say: 'Oh'. Yes, I have no problems in repeating my general support for Mr Neville Wran, the Premier-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that those honourable members who are indulging in this particular display reflect on the seriousness of the parliamentary institution, not of their personal amusement. Mr HAWKE —As distinct from those opposite, I will not engage, as they so unsuccessfully have over many weeks now, in the processes of smear, innuendo and guilt by association. One would have thought that by now the results of that tactic on their part would have penetrated even their slow learning minds, because the people of Australia will have no bar of this tactic. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —One would have thought that even those with slow learning minds would have come to the conclusion that the people of Australia will have no bar of this tactic of smear, innuendo and guilt by association. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. As I recollect the question, the Prime Minister was asked whether he supported the Premier of New South Wales-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should come to his point of order. Mr Tuckey —I am coming to that now. The Prime Minister is now talking about smear. I can only assume that when one mentions the Premier one talks in terms of smear. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I will not have any bar of that and, more importantly, of course, neither will the overwhelming majority of the people of Australia. In respect of the matter that has been raised-that is, the observations purported to have been made by Mr Wran-I have only seen those media reports, but I am quite sure that in any statements that he may have made Mr Wran would not have been intending any interference with the processes of the Senate. I repeat that: I do not believe that he would have intended any interference with the processes of the Senate. This matter is ultimately within the province of the Senate for its decision. Having said that, I repeat the more general point that in regard to Mr Wran, as far as I am concerned, I will not stand idly by while honourable members opposite try to drag him down by those processes of smear. There is not one piece of evidence that tackles the integrity of Mr Wran in respect of his administration of the state of New South Wales. There is not one piece of evidence and, while there is no evidence that goes to the integrity of Mr Wran, he will continue to have my support. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State and concerns the new legislation dealing with the disclosure of funds for Federal election campaigns. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the proposed debate in Wagga Wagga, for which television rights will be sold, involving the Leader of the Opposition, supporting the honourable member for Farrer, and the Leader of the National Party of Australia, supporting the honourable member for Hume, each comparing his and his protege's sincerity and honesty with that of the other coalition partner? Will the income from this television special have to be reported? Will the Minister also ensure that his colleague the Minister for Communications will look into this debate from the point of view of portraying current politics as soap opera, which is currently prohibited? Mr YOUNG —In replying to the honourable member for Prospect let me say that this proposed debate between the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Hume would hardly attract the audience that the Mondale-Reagan debate will probably get tonight. Nonetheless, now that the redistribution has been finished by the independent Australian Electoral Commission, much to the satisfaction of all members of the Parliament, including the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Forrest, who was very pleased with the outcome-- Mr Steedman —I was not. Mr YOUNG —And the honourable member for Casey. What the Australian people can be pleased about is that any political party or coalition of parties which now gets 50 per cent plus one per of the votes will become the government of Australia, and we will not have the unsavoury circumstances that existed over the past 20 years when the Liberal-Country Party managed to govern with a minority of votes. That will not happen again. Now that the redistribution has been concluded-- Mr Ian Cameron —Why do you not come out to Maranoa and find out what it is like there? Mr YOUNG —The Cunnamulla kid! The honourable member did quite well out of the redistribution. We cannot do much out there, can we? There are a number of people in the Opposition with whom this Government does not want-- Mr Howard —There is a loyalty. Mr Sinclair —How is David Combe feeling? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr YOUNG —It is an interesting day to talk about the loyalty of one person to another. How about the loyalty of the honourable member for Bennelong to the honourable member for Kooyong? There is a loyalty gap for you! If honourable members want to know why the honourable member for Bennelong put out a paper yesterday on flat rate tax, it was just to help Andrew in the election! Andrew will have to run around saying : 'We will not put a 30 per cent tax on'. The old submarine, the honourable member for Bennelong, is just trying to help his Leader along! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the House that one issue goes to answers at Question Time and that is the matter of relevance. I think the question is on election proceedings and not on the Budget. Mr YOUNG —I can tell honourable members that if people are taking up a collection at this Wagga debate and the Leader of the National Party is there, they had better be careful about whom they pass the cheque to, because I know who will win that one. The election laws now provide that anybody making a donation of over $200 to a candidate or over $1,000 to a political party will have his name put on a register, and that name will be available for everybody in Australia to see and to understand the relationship between the donor and the political party. It is something that should have been adopted in Australia a long time ago, as it has been adopted in most Western democracies. If people in Wagga Wagga make a donation of that size to a debate between the honourable member for Hume and the honourable member for Farrer-I very much doubt that they will; I could not see anyone paying 200 bucks for that-they will have to put their names in the register to comply with the laws now set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(2.59) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith the following motion: That this House- (1) condemns the intimidatory remarks of the Premier of New South Wales in relation to the evidence being given to the Senate Inquiry by Mr Clarrie Briese, the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales; (2) notes with concern this further example of the Premier's increasingly irrational and improper conduct in relation to certain matters pertaining to the administration of justice in New South Wales, and (3) expresses its concern at the implication for the administration of justice in New South Wales including those areas comprising federal jurisdiction of New South Wales courts federal from the Premier's conduct. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion in writing? Mr HOWARD —The motion is in writing and is seconded by the honourable member for North Sydney. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.11) —Yes, Mr Speaker. Last weekend the Premier of New South Wales directly, publicly-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.17) —The nature of this debate-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hall, SteeleAldred, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M.Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A. E. Hall, SteeleAldred, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M.Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Newman, K. E. Fry, K. L.Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J.Katter, R. C. Jacobi, R.Hicks, N. J. Theophanous, A. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 41 (4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and section 20 (4) of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Export Development Grants Board for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Trade Development Council Panel 75 on invisibles trade, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Limited copies of the report are available and further copies will be made available to all honourable members when they become printed. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973, I present the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission entitled ' Recommendations for 1985'. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1985-'Response to Government Guidelines'-and the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1985-86 triennium Volume 2 Part 1-'Recommendations on Grants'-and Part 2-'Advice of Council'-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the reports. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Commonwealth Fire Board annual report 1983-84. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 107 of the Repatriation Act 1920, I present the Repatriation Review Tribunal annual report 1983-84. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek to make a personal explanation on the ground that he has been personally misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. I will be very brief. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —The Australian of 5 October stated: Dr . . . Klugman . . . said truth and fairness in politics could be determined only by politicians. I am afraid that I have not such a high and mighty view, not even of my colleagues. I draw honourable members' attention to page 1591 of Hansard of 4 October. I said: Basically, we are recommending the repeal of the section, thus leaving the decision as to whether political advertising is true or false to the electors and to the law of defamation. The article that appeared in the Australian may have appeared also in other newspapers in Australia because I understand it involved a mistake by Australian Associated Press. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek the leave of the House to table a document which purports to be the minutes of a meeting on 7 June 1984 between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and representatives of the Australian Bank Employees Union and the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association. Mr Young —I am not in a position to approve the tabling at the moment. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shows them to the Treasurer, he will decide whether they can be tabled. Mr HOWARD —I would be delighted with that. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Right 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. 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 shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Hunt and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least 31 March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ruddock and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4 They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher,Mr Hawker and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Fisher. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws to prevent the importation and sale of hard- core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right 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: Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognizes that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. 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 because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C. and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control, (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they effect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that; The Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative, make sure that; A curfew is retained on both runways when the new airport is commissioned in 1984. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, plead that the Houses of Representatives will vote in favour of the Senate resolution calling for the appointment of a Select Joint Committee to examine the effects upon children of viewing pornography, violent and obscene video material, because not all parents are supervising all children all of the time, and not all video outlets are impoverishing themselves by compliance with the law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the penalties of a fine and three years suspension from Medicare imposed on Dr Rex Hood of Pingelly are out of all proportion to his offences; That neither Medicare nor Dr Hood's patients were put to increased expense by his unlawful acts; That the court action, administrative action and Medical Board inquiry in respect of the same acts constitute a form of triple jeopardy repugnant to the traditions of our legal system; and That the interests of the people of Pingelly were not considered. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Health rescind the suspension of Dr Hood; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the legislation and regulations associated with Medicare are repugnant to natural justice and humane medical practice, and more appropriate to a police state than to Australia; That the said legislation and regulations are being administered so as to oppress and demoralise the medical profession, and without regard to the interests of the sick; That altogether disproportionate penalities are being imposed, through administrative action, on medical practitioners for minor infringements of the Medicare rules; and That, unless reforms are instituted, the quality of Australia's health care system will decline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government legislate to make possible in Australia a health care system in which efficiency and innovation are not repressed, and humane medical practice is again possible without harassment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 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 of 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 that 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain members of the Parish of St. Francis Xavier, West Mackay, Queensland, electors of the Division of Dawson, shows that legislation is to be introduced allowing the import and sale of X-rated video films. Your petitioners therefore pray that such legislation be withdrawn. 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 certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. 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 humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Darling. Petitions received. Message received from the Senate returning the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Bill as amended by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to act in accordance with the national interest to ensure the future of the U.S. Alliance and particularly ANZUS. 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)(3.37) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition's matter of public importance reflects the growing public concern and disquiet over the drift of our foreign policy away from the United States of America as a result of the continuing factionalism within the Government. Let me remind the Government that the conduct of foreign policy determines the nation's long term destiny. That is why it is important for a government to pursue a coherent foreign policy with clearly defined objectives. Nothing is more harmful to Australia's security than to be lurching from one piecemeal policy to another -policies which owe their genesis more to internal party considerations, in the case of the Australian Labor Party, than to a rational assessment of Australia's national interest. It is this irresponsible approach to foreign policy and the United States relationship which has characterised this Government's foreign policy. What is particularly disturbing is the Government's attitude towards ANZUS. In this area it has oscillated between policies of benign neglect on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and active malevolence towards the United States on the part of many in the Labor Caucus and indeed in the Ministry. It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's rhetoric on ANZUS and the United States relationship is not supported by the Government in its actions. Both the Prime Minister and indeed the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) have refused to intervene in New Zealand's dispute with the United States Government over New Zealand's refusal to grant access to United States ships to New Zealand ports. Furthermore, this Government has shown no sign of registering Australian concerns about New Zealand's refusal to take part in joint exercises where nuclear powered or armed units are involved. These incidents strike at the very heart of ANZUS. The governmental inertia is typified by the Foreign Minister's latest comments that he would 'not be an errand boy for the United States'. No one would want or expect Australia's Foreign Minister to be anyone's errand boy, although incidentally, that is what he trumpeted when he went to Moscow recently. However, we would expect him to address a matter of such vital importance as this and act to ensure Australia's national interest. The United States Secretary of State has pointed out that if New Zealand wishes to share in the benefits of ANZUS, which Mr Lange says he does, then that country must assume its obligations. It has been made abundantly clear that, if the ships of one alliance partner are effectively prohibited from the ports of another, then that alliance will be reduced to a hollow shell. This goes to the heart of Australia's security. Yet, when the United States requests Australia to use its influence on the fraternal Labour Government in New Zealand on this issue, something which we should have been doing assiduously anyway, the Foreign Minister gratuitously insults the United States. What of the Prime Minister? Does he show any signs of recognising the seriousness of the problem? No, he does not. He acts as if the problem either will go away or does not exist. He is either out of touch with the realities of the situation, the seriousness of which has now been made crystal clear by both the New Zealand and American governments, or he feels constrained by the internal divisions within his own Party from acting to shore up the ANZUS alliance; nor is there any indication that the Australian Government is preparing the groundwork for bilateral discussions with the United States over ways of preserving the ANZUS framework. Such matters require careful and painstaking consideration. They cannot simply be dropped into place. Yet the Government gives every appearance of doing nothing, either because it is too difficult factionally, or because it might upset New Zealand. The benign neglect , which typifies the response of the Prime Minister and the Government towards ANZUS, is deserving of condemnation on its own. However, on top of this is a consistent pattern of Labor Government actions which have resulted in a weakening of our defence relationship with the United States and its ability to project itself into our region at a time of significant increases in Soviet deployment. Let me detail briefly some of these actions. We have the Prime Minister's own commitment to a concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone. Rather than showing leadership at the South Pacific Forum and emphasising the importance of the United States presence in our region, the Prime Minister opted for a shoddy compromise which, whilst it might appease the left wing of his Party, only adds uncertainty about the future role of the United States in our region. Whatever the Government may say about ensuring that the nuclear free zone will not exclude the transit of nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels, there is no doubt that this proposal is the thin end of the wedge. It is perceived as such, of course, by Mr Lange, who regards it as a satisfactory first step. This concept, which is about the only centrepiece of the Prime Minister's foreign policy, will be very difficult to keep the lid on. The Government is promoting an initiative in the region which has the potential to place serious obstacles in the way of ANZUS and the United States security effort. This Government is not content to compromise our security interests solely in the Pacific. It is also actively encouraging regional disarmament initiatives in the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is, of course, an increasingly vital part of the world. The Soviet Union has a strategic advantage over the United States in this region through its geographic proximity to the area. Furthermore, new bases in Afghanistan and the southern parts of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics , coupled with ready access to airfields in Ethiopia and South Yemen, have considerably increased this advantage. The difficulties the United States has just in supporting a peacetime deterrent makes this a hazardous enough task on its own. Even with the continued use of the bases in the Philippines and the absence of a threat to the Straits of Malacca choke point, the Western Australian home port facilities are crucial. Yet we have the Government's involvement in the Indian Ocean zone of peace concept. Even more disturbing was the acceptance of the Thomas amendment at the last Australian Labor Party Federal conference. This amendment called for restrictions on the pattern and frequency of United States naval visits. It also called for all development work on naval installations in Western Australia to be related solely to the needs of the Royal Australian Navy and not to the requirements of any other navy. Ipso facto, we are to take no notice of commonsense requirements for compatibility of our naval facilities with those of our major allies because only the RAN is to use the facilities and all development work on those naval installations is to be related solely to the RAN and not to our major allies. To make matters worse, the Hawke Government has established a working party of the left wing controlled Western Australian ALP to recommend how the new ALP policy on United States naval visits will be applied. The Government's actions are not confined to the oceans and coastlines of Australia. On 6 June the Prime Minister made a typically sanctimonious speech on the United States joint facilities in which he reiterated the Government's commitment to the joint facilities and the Western alliance. Shortly after this speech, the Foreign Minister took a contrary view. On 7 August in Geneva and earlier on 29 July in Brisbane, in a little reported but important speech which exposed his thinking on this matter, the contrary view was there. The Foreign Minister spelt out very clearly two things about his conduct of the Australian- United States relationship: First, that, should the joint facilities develop a role in first strike capability, they should be closed; second, that, if Australia felt that the United States did not have a genuine commitment to the disarmament process, then Australia would have to re-assess its policies and attitudes to the United States bases. We believe that the Foreign Minister's views are patent nonsense. What does he mean by a first strike capacity? What does he mean by a genuine commitment to the disarmament process in the face of Soviet intransigence? The Foreign Minister has not yet explained his benchmarks for a decision that the United States must get out of Australia. Equally extraordinarily, the Prime Minister has not repudiated the contradictory statements of his Foreign Minister. He merely described the remarks as hypothetical. There is nothing hypothetical about the Foreign Minister's remarks , and they constitute a very real threat to our relationship with the United States. Moreover, the Foreign Minister's pursuit of disarmament matters will continue to collide with the legitimate security concerns of the United States in the face of the massive Soviet weapons build-up. Whilst the coalition disagrees with the distorted prism through which the Foreign Minister views the nuclear debate, it acknowledges that his statements are calculated and well thought out. That is somewhat different from those of the Prime Minister who, in the field of foreign policy particularly, has no consistency of view. While he pays lip service to ANZUS now, neither the coalition nor the Australian people will forget his signing in 1976 of a call for 'an independent and non-aligned Australia'. Mr Coleman —And several of his colleagues. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, and several of his colleagues. What are our allies to make of this foreign affairs zig and zag show? What faith can they place in a government that has two spokesmen on foreign affairs issuing conflicting statements on strategic matters-matters which go to the heart of our security, to the root of our relationship with the United States? There should be no need to remind the House of the importance of ANZUS to Australia. I dare say that, if one asked any number of people passing this building today or in any centre or small town of Australia, the overwhelming majority would reaffirm their commitment to the ANZUS Treaty. We have had this commitment in Australia since 1951, and from our side of politics it is a commitment which has been unequivocal. In three important respects it is the cornerstone of our strategic security. First, it offers the ultimate guarantee to our security should a direct threat to Australia eventuate. Second, it is a necessary instrument for maintaining the global strategic balance and in this respect ensures a measure of stability in international affairs. Third, it is a force for stability within the Asian-Pacific region and has assisted, by underpinning the framework of stability, the dynamic economic growth of the region. Moreover, it is our only direct and formal link to the network of alliances which collectively form the Western alliance. The coalition's attitude is marked by its clarity. This is in sharp contrast with that of the present Government. The coalition's acceptance of the Western alliance and ANZUS is based on a realistic calculation of the benefits and, of course, the risks. There are always both in an alliance of this nature. There are, in fact, few alliances like the ANZUS alliance in the world. Why it even has to be called into question when the benefits, so far as Australia is concerned, far outweigh the risks and when the benefits flow to Australia in far greater proportion than they do to the United States can be answered only by the Government. The calling into question and the refusal to take the New Zealand Government on on a matter that strikes at the heart of our security arrangements renders this Government open to the strongest criticism and condemnation. Of course, the ANZUS Treaty does not guarantee in absolute terms that any party will do anything other than consult. What happens in any situation will depend on a range of factors. Included in this will be the status of the defence and strategic relationships between us. That is why Australia has worked hard at consolidating the American relationship over the years. Any American attitude will be dependent on the standing of the Australia-America relationship in economic, political and defence terms. It is this structure, represented by ANZUS, which has been placed in jeopardy by the actions, indeed inactions as well, of this Government. It is in danger of being reduced to a hollow shell. This Government, by placing its own factional interests ahead of the national interest, is contributing to the destruction of a relationship which has been nurtured carefully over three decades. We cannot accept that the Government is constrained by its own factions from trying to influence the New Zealand Government. We cannot accept that the Government is constrained by its own factions from laying the groundwork for negotiation of a bilateral treaty because, by spelling out the treaty relationship with the United States, it will open a real hornet's nest in its own Party. We cannot accept that this Government's inertia towards the United States alliance and its active pursuit of policies which threaten that alliance could be anything other than contrary to Australia's national interest. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.53) —The statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was fascinating for what it failed to say after promising so much. What he accused the Government of failing to do was, using his words, 'take the New Zealand Government on'. I am not quite clear what he had in mind when he said 'take the New Zealand Government on'. I do not know whether he proposes some sort of political bovver boy tactic of steel cap boots being used to kick people's shins, whether some sort of fierce public denunciation should take place or whatever. One tends to divine that his inclination is that it has to be passionate, tough and very aggressive, but he did not outline what he had in mind. He did not explain to the House and the public what he believed the alternative course of conduct should be. Therefore, I find his whole purpose something of a mystery. What exactly is it that we have been doing, as distinct from the things he has synthetically presented here and claims we have not been doing, that is not satisfactory and in what way should it be altered? The first thing I have to point out to him is that what we have done-our approach to this rather difficult situation obviously causes us preoccupation and some concern-has been to address ourselves to this issue as subtly as we can with the hope that there will be some positive output at the end. If the Leader of the Opposition has reservations about that let me remind him that the tactic we are adopting in this is exactly that which has been adopted by the United States. In both cases we have adopted this common approach to the situation because we believe, in all of the circumstances, that if anything is to prove productive in the difficulties which have now arisen this is the most likely course of conduct to bring about that sort of result. The week before last in New York I spoke with the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr George Shultz, and the day before, on the Wednesday, I spoke with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange, on this matter. All agree that the approach which we are adopting, which all of us very largely are adopting, is the most appropriate tactic to develop in these circumstances. Therefore, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: What exactly is it that he finds wrong, and not just with our approach? What is it that he criticises in the approach of the United States? What is it in the tactic which is being adopted by the Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, that he objects to and wishes to condemn? The honourable member presented a display of professed fealty to the alliance and particular affection towards the United States. I seek to score off none of those points. I merely say that he sought to portray those qualities in what we had to say. Yet if he takes logically the implications of the criticisms he has put forward, he is rather vigorously attacking, criticising, the United States Administration and the way in which the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr George Shultz, is conducting the US Administration's response to this situation. There are a number, not just one or two but several, misstatements-I will be kind enough to restrict my description of them to that-in what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He said that, when the United States requests the Australian Labor Government to use its influence on its fraternal Labour Party colleague and Government in New Zealand, it refuses to do so. He said that we have repudiated the United States when it has requested us to use our influence on our fraternal colleagues in New Zealand. The fact is that the United States has not sought that. It has not asked it, implied it or made such an approach in any way. In all of our discussions we have agreed that the sort of approach being adopted consistently since the Labour Government came into power in New Zealand, the approach common to the United States Administration and common to us, is the best one to adopt. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what the Secretary of State said at the conclusion of the thirty-third ANZUS Council Meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, on 17 July 1984. At the Press conference in which the New Zealand representative, Mr Cooper, the retiring Foreign Minister of that country, and I also participated, the question was asked of Mr Shultz: Mr Shultz, if the Labour Party does carry out its policy in banning visits of nuclear ships here, will it be the end of ANZUS? Mr Shultz replied: Well, we will have to see what happens and I think it's better to stay away from 'iffy' questions, to state our positions clearly and to work with the new Government and see if we can't resolve the problems satisfactorily. That line is a line which has been pursued consistently by the United States Administration. That approach is the approach that we have undeviatingly followed ourselves. I agree with what George Shultz said: . . . I think it's better to stay away from 'iffy' questions . . . It is better to state our position clearly and positively, and to try to work for a satisfactory outcome of this problem. That is what we have been doing. That is what the United States has been doing. That is not what the Opposition has been doing or is doing on this occasion. What the Opposition is doing is seeking to inflame this particularly difficult situation. If the Opposition had a genuine concern for the alliance, the ANZUS Treaty, and if it were even partly, fractionally, as committed to it as it claims to be, it would not be trying to aggravate this situation at present. The Leader of the Opposition, from his distinguished service to this country of nearly half a decade as Foreign Minister of Australia, should recall that there are certain situations in foreign relations in which it is best to take a more subtle and low key approach when difficulties arise, and this is one such occasion. That is why there has been no deviation by either the United States or Australia on this issue. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has been fairly consistent in statements he has made in which he quite explicitly has declared that New Zealand wishes to remain in ANZUS. New Zealand has a dispute on one aspect of the relationship. That is a dispute to which the United States, Australia and New Zealand have been addressing themselves in a succession of discussions which have been taking place, and no doubt there will be more. Mr Lange has repeatedly said that New Zealand wishes to stay in the alliance. As recently as the 25th of last month, at the General Assembly of the United Nations, he said: That membership is formally expressed in a security treaty with the United States and Australia which, for 33 years, has been a central feature of the foreign and defence policies of successive New Zealand Governments, including my own. He has repeatedly declared the keenness of the New Zealand Labour Government to remain within ANZUS. There is a problem; there is no disputing that. It has been addressed with a great deal of care, caution and, of course, some concern by the respective parties. That difficulty is not helped in any way at all by the flagrant way in which the Opposition is seeking to open up fissures and to make the processes more difficult not just for the Government of this country but also for the Administration of the United States as well as for the responsible people in the Government in New Zealand. This is a completely unhelpful approach on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. An editorial in the Australian of 31 August stated: However, individual countries themselves will determine whether nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships and planes may visit their ports, and what transit rights they will enjoy. This means that the operation of the ANZUS treaty is not adversely affected at all by the nuclear-free zone. The nuclear free zone is another matter which the Leader of the Opposition raised and to which I want to address myself now. I have a minute which contains an extract of a statement of 28 August from the United States State Department. It was provided by my Department and I am happy to show it to the Leader of the Opposition and his foreign affairs spokesman. It states: The Australians, who originated the proposal- that is, the proposal for the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific- have taken particular care to assure it would not affect the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States Treaty) relationship, the Department pointed out. There must be something wrong when the Opposition is constantly telling us how the Labor Government of Australia is impairing in one way or another the important ANZUS relationship and the Americans are constantly saying that that is not so. We think the relationship is in as strong a condition as it has ever been if not in a healthier condition than it has ever been at any time in the past. So the South Pacific nuclear free zone proposal put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the recent South Pacific Forum Conference is not, as the Leader of the Opposition described it, 'a shoddy proposal'. That is the term he used. It is a proposal which is understood by our friends and allies and at the same time is a concrete demonstration of our concern to put in place things which show beyond any doubt the genuineness of our credentials in regard to the issues of nuclear arms control and disarmament. I repeat that it is something which has widespread support in the South Pacific. Let me move on from that serious misstatement. The Leader of the Opposition has said that New Zealand has refused to take part in exercises involving nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships. That is not my understanding of the situation. My recollection, which may be a little hazy at the edges, is that at least one spokesman for the New Zealand Government is on record as saying that the restrictions in respect of the use of port facilities will not be an impediment to participation in exercises. However, I have had a check carried out and have had a note sent in to me since the Leader of the Opposition made that statement, and the note states: N.Z. Government has not said it will not participate in exercises involving nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships of U.S. So we find that the case put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not just designed to apply more undesirable tension, pressure and divisiveness in this rather delicate area but is based on a succession of misstatements from a man who, I repeat, in my view was a distinguished representative of this country as its Foreign Minister for half a decade and therefore should know better. He should be able to check his facts. The staff he has available to him is highly qualified, able and dedicated. These things should have been checked before they were said. The next matter he attacked us on concerned the Indian Ocean zone of peace. The Leader of the Opposition, in a statement entitled 'An Australian Dilemma: Defence and Diplomacy in the Indian Ocean' to a conference held by the Australian Institute of International Affairs and the United Services Institute at the Joint Services Staff College in Canberra in 1976, referred to the Indian Ocean zone of peace as a noble ideal. He said: We have said that it- the Indian Ocean zone of peace- represents a 'noble ideal'. In saying this we are conscious, however, that it is a concept which can influence the conduct of the Super Powers. It would in practice complement the objectives which we believe can be achieved through balance. He refers to the concept as a noble ideal, and so do we. We also acknowledge the very large difficulties involved in getting it into place, but we are trying. This Government is a member of the same ad hoc committee in which we are trying to do that as was the honourable member's Government in the past. So that is another nonsense. One wonders what the motivation was for bringing this sort of matter forward. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the issue of arms control and the joint facilities. That has been responded to before. I have made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that my comments were hypothetical comments which would apply perhaps in certain circumstances. After all, reference to such a subject is hypothetical but scarcely relevant to the case he has been trying to make. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.13) —The Opposition has raised this matter of public importance simply because it and the Australian community are becoming very restive about the developing crisis over ANZUS. We all know that the Government has a credibility problem which has been raised by off-the-cuff statements, particularly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I refer in particular to his recent comment in the United States of America when he said: Australia is not 'an errand boy' for the United States. One can understand what he has in mind when he said this. But his capacity for the unhappy phrase does not allow people to give credit to his concern that Australia should not exacerbate the sensitivity of the issue, and we acknowledge the sensitivity of the issue. Equally unfortunate is the policy of threatening to expel the joint facilities in central Australia if there were not better progress on disarmament. These remarks have not encouraged people to believe he will do his best to save ANZUS. The fact is that the Government, on the issue of international security, has lost a great deal of credibility, because of the unhappy knack the Foreign Minister has of making or seeming to make the United States a scapegoat. This is clearly implied in his recent statement on behalf of the Australian Government to the United Nations. When he refers to joint facilities in the United Nations in a context which suggests Australian patience with the United States is becoming exhausted-I am using his own words-he is defeating his own purposes. He is sending a signal, whether deliberately or unintentionally, to the Soviet Union, that all it has to do to get the United States out of Australia is to maintain an attitude of intransigence towards the verification problems which bedevil progress on arms control. It may be the view of this Australian Government to tell the assembled nations that Australia will expel the United States if there is not progress on disarmament. But it certainly is not the view of the people of Australia and it certainly is not the view of the Opposition. We know too that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has a credibility problem within his Party on such issues because he simply does not have the numbers in Caucus. He knows, and the Press Gallery knows, that the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in Cabinet creates a situation which puts the Prime Minister on the defensive. So the Prime Minister is practically silent on ANZUS. Today the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made the charge again that the Opposition is seeking to inflame the situation. The Opposition is certainly not seeking to inflame the situation. The fact is that we have a duty to ourselves to say what we think this alliance is all about. We have a duty to Australia to prevent what someone has described as the New Zealandisation of Australia. We do not have to be afraid of becoming an errand boy for the United States in order to remind Australians of the significance of ANZUS against the assault on Australian public opinion mounted from New Zealand, in concert with the Australian Democrats. We have been visited by the keepers of the New Zealand conscience, including the New Zealand Labor Party strong man Mr Anderton. They have not been keeping their counsel on this matter, and have been very deliberately concerting an attack on Australian public opinion. So the time has come to tell New Zealand that this assault on our interests simply has to stop. Even the Pacific Trade Union Forum was hauled into action by the New Zealand Federation of Labour. Jim Knox announced at the conference that New Zealand is to scrap ANZUS. He said: We want to see the Pact destroyed. That is the view of the New Zealand Federation of Labour. In this House, the acting Foreign Minister spoke in some ambiguous defence of this idiocy. The acting Foreign Minister took a benevolent view of the developments at the Forum his interest in ANZUS was obviously not very compelling. Mr Lange is upon us, he seemed to say, because New Zealand has a public opinion which has been influenced by the peace movement. Let us look at some of the brainwashing coming from across the Tasman. It is said that ANZUS was signed to reassure us against the Japanese and that, in view of the fact that the Japanese are upgrading their self defence program because of American interest, ANZUS is invalidated. This somewhat tortuous concept was enunciated by the new New Zealand Ambassador to the United States. I have news for this gentleman. The ANZUS treaty was put in place after Communist North Korea invaded South Korea, thereby producing a direct threat to Japan. Sir Richard Casey wrote in 1954: Well before the ANZUS Treaty was drafted, the spokesman of the Australian Government identified the immediate menace in the Pacific not as Japan but as communist imperialism. The critics who want to knock ANZUS then say it is a treaty to consult. This is simply not true. It is a treaty which obliges partners to consult if they consider that there is a threat developing. This is a sensible clause and it is in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation provisions. But the crucial clause obliges ANZUS partners to act to meet the common danger of armed attack according to the respective constitutional processes. The New Zealand debate hardly ever mentions this clause. It is not in the peace movement's manual either. So New Zealand public opinion has been led by the nose by those who discount the contemporary relevance and power of ANZUS. The Foreign Minister asks what the Government should do and what has it been doing wrong. I will tell the Foreign Minister what the Government should do. The Government should be much more vocal in contradicting this nonsense threatening ANZUS as it gets repeated time and again by those badgers of the Australian media-the talk-back, talk-fast and think-slick talk-back radio commentators. The Government has the resources to bring about an understanding of the part played constructively and sensibly by the interlocking system of Western security of which the United States is central and ANZUS is a part. As a distinguished Australian serviceman said recently: 'Our national task is to prevent war'. This is done by developing a system of security which is adequate to deter war. We have, in the Pacific region, been sorely tried. The Korean War of 1950 threatened to deliver the Korean people entirely into communist hands, and this would have put Japan under enormous pressure. Today South Korea and Japan are great economic pace-setters and our economic future lies in the complementary industrial might and commercial strength of these great economies. Where would they be without the security support of the United States? We hear a lot about the negative factors in the Vietnam War. But during the time the issues were being contested there, the remaining nations-the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations-developed their nationalism, rejected communism and drew themselves together into a most viable international community-ASEAN. Their governments, too, have an acute concept of the need for stabilising measures that proceeds only from a system of collective security. Thailand, a key state in the region, is linked through the Manila Treaty with the United States. The Philippines has a treaty relationship. Australia, Britain and New Zealand have a defence arrangement with Malaysia and Singapore. The ASEAN region is of great economic importance to Australia. Its stability is fundamental. Its stability has been greatly enhanced by the knowledge that Australia and New Zealand in the past have worked closely with the United States to maintain the Pacific as a stable force in world affairs. Now this manic obsession in New Zealand with the nuclear question is attempting to derail the benefits which come to the region. It needs no futurologist to tell any one of us that the security of New Zealand or Australia is not under immediate threat. It is an important factor in our mutual benefits from ANZUS. But there is no immediate contingency of threat. But we are nothing if the United States fails in the magnificent task of continuing to ensure the stability of the Pacific which rests on the interlocking system of alliances sponsored by the United States. We live in the fastest growing economic region of the world. But that situation will not remain , and our prosperity and New Zealand's will not remain if the system of security which lies behind it is up-ended. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is, as we know, enhancing its capacity to be more militarily dominant in the region. At this time we find New Zealand policy disabling the United States and discounting the great contribution that that nation and its people make to human betterment. I believe that the whole argument for collective security has two sides. In one dimension, by preventing war, by deterring any temptation to resort to military conflict, we strengthen peace, we strengthen stability and we strengthen economic progress. But we also have the opportunity, through our association with our ally, the United States, to be involved in the East-West dialogue, which holds a major key to our ultimate destiny. We ought to realise, understand and state publicly and clearly to the Australian people the benefits which flow to this country from a continuation and a strengthening of the relationship between our two countries which underpins that security and that economic progress which we always look forward to. In the final analysis, if the New Zealand attitude forces New Zealand into a position which invalidates its membership of ANZUS, and the reputation of that alliance, Australia should make its own bilateral arrangements with the United States. This is too important a matter to allow public opinion to drift, to allow a wedge to be forced between the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. It is a matter which is basic to the very security and future prosperity of this nation. All of the people must be told of the benefits and modern relevance of the ANZUS Treaty. We must not allow the argument to go by default; the Government is allowing just that course. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MORRISON(St George)(4.18) —I suspect that there can be no surer sign of an approaching election than this tired old tactic of the Opposition of trotting out a debate on ANZUS. Those of us who have been around for some time know that one can lay 6 to 4 on that, about three or four weeks before an election date, out will come ANZUS. That very practice is an effort to demean the relationship between Australia and the United States of America. It is not a relationship, as the Opposition seeks to imply, between the Liberal Party of Australia and the United States. But in desperation this time the Opposition has sought to blame the Hawke Government for what the Opposition sees as the shortcomings, not of the Australian Government-although we are debating this matter in the Australian Parliament-but of the New Zealand Government. Let us be very clear on one matter-the Hawke Government's position on ANZUS. About this time last year, or just a little earlier-on 15 September 1983-the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) brought down a review of ANZUS. I quote what the Minister, on behalf of the Hawke Government, said about ANZUS: The Government has completed its review of the ANZUS Treaty, first as a national act and then in association with Australia's alliance partners. The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. A little further on the Minister said: . . . although the Treaty was drawn up a generation ago, and in very different circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments and obligations that were accepted then remain as valid and appropriate today. The Treaty has the full support of this Government . . . I make those points very clear because in the argumentation that has flowed from the speeches of both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) , there is an effort to contest those propositions that have been unequivocally stated by the Government. That speech on the review of ANZUS was in response to a paper presented by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence dealing with ANZUS. Because this report was agreed to by Liberal Party members, I want to quote a section from it which is very pertinent to the considerations we are facing today on a matter of difference between alliance partners. On page 88, the report says: The Committee has stressed several times in this report that there is inevitably an asymmetry of interests and needs between Australia and New Zealand , the 'junior partners' in the ANZUS Alliance, and the United States, the ' senior partner'. Australia (as does New Zealand) frequently has quite different foreign policy preoccupations from those of its ally. So far, although Australia and the United States have had reasons to be annoyed with one another, the relationship has endured such 'family quarrels'. A little further on, on page 91, it says: The Committee believes that differences between Australia and the United States - we can put New Zealand in there- will continue to exist and will be appropriate on some issues. On the basis of past example, however, the management of these differences is likely to be conducted in an atmosphere which, on balance, favours accommodation. The Opposition, as shown by the statements made today and in a Press release from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, is not prepared to allow quiet and diplomatic discussions to arrive at that sort of accommodation referred to in the Joint Committee's report. In fact, the argumentation produced today encourages the collapse of ANZUS by excluding New Zealand. The Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs said we should make it on our own and have bilateral arrangements with the United States. So members of the Opposition want not to go through the process of accommodation, taking into account different points of view, but propose that we dismantle ANZUS by excluding New Zealand. That is the very simple proposition that they have put forward. They seek, by the proposition they have put forward today and by the statement made last night by the Leader of the Opposition, to undermine ANZUS, to exclude New Zealand, and are not prepared to adopt the practice that the United States is adopting, of quiet diplomacy to accommodate differences of opinion within ANZUS. So they are seeking to abandon New Zealand; they are seeking to dismantle the ANZUS alliance . That is the proposition they have put forward today. The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech today and in last night's Press release, talks about pandering to left wing initiatives. Some of the observations-I am glad to hear such observations from the Opposition-refer to the Indian Ocean. I read a quotation from a statement made in September 1980: . . . great power military presence in the Indian Ocean has increased and that there has been a deterioration of peace and security in the Indian Ocean area. They further noted with regret that recent events in the region, together with the worsening international situation, have caused a further build-up of great power military presence. While regretting the suspension of the bilateral talks on arms limitation in the Indian Ocean between the Soviet Union and the United States and reaffirming their commitment to the ultimate establishment of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean in accordance with the 1971 UN declaration, they called upon the great powers to take active and effective steps to remove existing sources of tension in the area. That is not a statement by a left wing organisation; it is a statement made by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in New Delhi in September 1980 signed by Prime Minister Fraser. So here we have a proposition that members of the Opposition now attack, saying a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean is a left wing idea. That concept has been basic to Australia. Since 1972 successive Australian governments have consistently voted in the United Nations for resolutions on the Indian Ocean zone of peace. Incorporated in that voting pattern are statements by the present Opposition when it was in government from 1976 onwards. There is also a reference in the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition to the notion of self-reliance and defence. It is an important and basic part of our approach to the ANZUS alliance that Australia will undertake responsibilities in its own area and ensure that our forces are adequate to carry out those responsibilities. Regrettably, last night the Leader of the Opposition stated that there had been a serious rundown of our defence forces. Once again I want to sheet home the guilt and responsibility for the rundown of the defence forces. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you have heard this before but it seems people on your side have very short memories. I refer to the statement made by the Liberal Party's Minister for Defence on 29 April 1982. I repeat some of the statements from that announcement that he made. He said that the Government-the Liberal Party-would not at that stage proceed with the acquisition of an additional five Fremantle class patrol boats or the second underway replenishment ship. He said that the Government would cut back on the follow-on destroyers and would delay lower priority facilities and infrastructure development. He said there would be a reduction in program costs for expenditure, and planned fuel and other stockholding levels would also be reduced. The men guilty for any rundown of the Australian defence forces sit opposite. The program of the present Government is to ensure that we can adequately fulfil our role under ANZUS by undertaking responsibilities for which Australia alone should be responsible. That is the contribution we are making to ANZUS. We have stated our affinity with ANZUS and we believe that is the proposal supported by the Australian people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, shortly after Question Time I sought the leave of the House to table a document which purported to be the minutes of a meeting between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and representatives of two unions held on 7 June. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) indicated at the time that, subject to my discussing it with the Treasurer and his giving approval, I could table those minutes. I did have a discussion with the Treasurer and he indicated that he would agree to my tabling the document. He has now come into the chamber ; he can confirm that he did agree, subject to my letting him know, which I did. I am glad the honourable gentleman has arrived. I simply want to say at this stage that the document which has come into my possession purports to be the minutes of a meeting with representatives of the Australian Bank Employees Union and the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association of Australia, held in Canberra on 7 June 1984. I have, of course, furnished the Treasurer with a copy of the minutes. On the face of it, there is a conflict between the answer the honourable gentleman gave and that document. I simply make the point, so that there should be no misunderstanding about it, that I do not at this stage claim other than that this document purports to be a record of the discussion between the Treasurer and the unions on that particular date. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said today in a question to me in relation to this matter that the document tabled represented the minutes of a meeting. The fact is that it does not contain the minutes of a meeting because the minutes would require some approval of their contents by me and there were no minutes kept as such. The document is obviously someone's note, if that. I make the point that it has no official status and, indeed, is not even an accurate record. I indicated at Question Time that I expressly told the unions that they would be vetting nothing in respect of the applicants. Indeed, my own Caucus committee sought also to involve itself in the approval of foreign exchange licences. I disagreed with that; I said that it was not entitled to do that. I would not allow it to do that and it did not. In the same vein, I told that to the bank employees unions. I do not know whether this document is even a note of a bank employees union-it has no signature to it-but it certainly is not a minute of the meeting and it is definitely an inaccurate record of what took place. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —by leave-I simply want to add that in a strict technical sense the document does not constitute an agreed minute between the two parties present at the meeting. I should make it perfectly plain to the House that I understand the document to have been a record of that conversation prepared on the union side. It has come to me on that basis. I am not surprised that the honourable gentleman should take exception to some of the things contained in the document because they are plainly at odds in one particular respect with the answer given today by the honourable gentleman. It is also interesting to note the very strident guarantees claimed in the record of conversation to have been given by the Treasurer regarding the union nature of any foreign banks that are granted licences. I think that the document will make some interesting reading for those people. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —I seek leave to respond to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the same subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer seeks leave to reply on the same matter. This is not a particularly formal way to handle this matter. Ideally, there should have been a motion to take note of the paper, but the House seems to be indulgent on this matter. On the premise that the matter will be brought to a quick conclusion, the Treasurer is given leave. Mr KEATING —First, I said that I had no knowledge of this document or its authenticity. It is obviously a record by somebody at the meeting, or appears to be. It is not accurate in respect of this question of vetting. It would be unthinkable for a union to be sitting beside the Government vetting foreign bank applicants for licences. I made that quite clear to the unions. I am sure that any inquiry to the bank officers' unions will substantiate that fact. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I present a report of the Committee on Road Safety generally. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —by leave-The report I have just tabled resulted from a road safety survey conducted by the Committee, which distributed a questionnaire Australia- wide through the offices of Federal members of parliament. The media also played a key role in drawing the questionnaire to the attention of the public. The questionnaire sought to identify people's perceptions of the major contributing factors to road crashes. Four major areas stood out, and these formed the basis for this report, namely: drink-driving; driver attitude and behaviour; speed as a factor in road crashes; and disregard of road law as a factor in crashes. Alcohol was recognised as still being the greatest single cause of trauma on our roads. Random breath testing has had a definite impact on our road fatality figures, as is evidenced in Victoria, where the proportion of fatal crashes that have involved a positive blood alcohol level has gone down over the last five years from about 55 per cent to 40 per cent. The Committee believes that random breath testing should be fully implemented in all States and territories. The Committee noted that drugs, including medication, are also contributing to road crashes. Although a large volume of work would be involved, the Committee believes that further research is needed in this area. The Committee recognises the important initiatives of the Federal Office of Road Safety in commissioning studies on the effect of cannabis and alcohol on driving and on drug screening of drivers and pedestrians killed in road crashes. Applicants for driving licences should be made aware of the dangers of alcohol and drugs in relation to driving. The community as a whole should be more aware of the effects on driving of medication, other drugs and their interaction with alcohol. Driver attitude and behaviour has long been recognised as one of the most important factors in road crashes but one of the most difficult to tackle. It is a difficult area to approach and, in the past, road safety authorities have tended to concentrate more on the road environment and vehicle safety. The behaviour of the road user is nearly always the final link in the chain of circumstances which lead to a road accident. On the positive side, driver behaviour can very often sever that final link. Researchers have estimated that the driver provides somewhere between 65 and 95 per cent of the prime causes of crashes, with the vehicle and the road providing the remainder. Driver behaviour is seen as dependent on the driver's ability and motivation or attitude. Of these two factors, research has consistently found that motivation is the most important influence on behaviour and well outweighs a driver's ability in determining the safety of road behaviour. It is also clear that the degree of difficulty of driving depends on what the driver chooses to do rather than the inherent difficulty of the driving task. A driver chooses to take sharp corners at high speed, to overtake in heavy traffic, or simply to drive recklessly. Safe behaviour can be motivated by a co-operative attitude, a desire to avoid crashes or simply to avoid penalties for breaking the law. Education and campaigns to change community and individual driver attitudes are more productive than external enforcement measures as they are capable of providing a high level of compliance through self-enforcement. However, the Committee believes that selective enforcement can affect driver attitudes, with random breath testing being a good example. While recognising the difficulties of changing driver attitudes and behaviour to improve road safety, there are positive signs emerging. Research and education campaigns have identified some aspects that are more amenable to change. Recent anti-drink driving campaigns and random breath testing have seen marked reductions in road fatalities associated with alcohol, and the Committee is most heartened by this. The Committee has recommended that priority be given to road safety research aimed at investigating and improving driver attitude and behaviour. Speed was ranked third in the survey of the most important factors contributing to road crashes. It seems that rather than the speed at which a car is driven, it is the inability of the driver to control the car at that speed and to react quickly enough to hazards or the actions of other drivers that leads to crashes. It seems to be the variability of speeds within a traffic stream that is a significant determinant of the likelihood of a collision. Evidence suggest that speed reductions will be most effective if the driving public can be convinced that the new limits are reasonable and the limits are rigorously enforced. The Committee believes that State and territory traffic authorities should be encouraged to use speed zoning depending on road and traffic conditions when setting speed limits. Disregard of road rules was the fourth most important contributing factor in road crashes. Traffic enforcement accounts for the largest single proportion of all police duties. A considerable body of research relating to the effectiveness of enforcement in modifying road user behaviour and in reducing accidents currently exists. However, most studies are methodologically inadequate and few firm conclusions can be drawn from them. The Committee believes that the effectiveness of various enforcement procedures, including penalties, is in need of review. The difficulties and dangers of driving in remote areas of Australia are well known and the Committee was struck by the poor road conditions in many areas. If alcohol is added to this picture we have the dangerous mix of high speed, unrealistic driver perceptions and unsafe roads. The Committee looked at particular road safety problems affecting Aboriginals. The Committee believes that some road safety publicity campaigns need to be designed specifically for Aboriginal and other outback communities. In such an important area as that of road safety, the Committee believes that national co- ordination is needed to develop short and long term road safety objectives. The Committee believes that a set of standardised statistics should be devised and collected throughout Australia to provide a more substantial road safety data base for Australia. Road safety research priorities should be developed at a national level by a Commonwealth-State co-operative body. Based on adequately researched road safety priorities, a program of short and long term measures should be developed at a national level by a Commonwealth-State co-operative body. This body should plan, co-ordinate and in some cases develop road safety programs at the national level. On the basis of national priorities, Commonwealth grants could be made for specific research, program development or education campaigns. The Commonwealth needs to initiate and promote uniformity in Australian road safety statistics and the adoption of best practice in road safety measures. The Committee believes that greater co-ordination initiated at the national level is essential to make the maximum use of the expertise and financial resources available, whilst acknowledging that in many instances the State governments hold authority on specific road safety rules. The Committee believes that through co-ordination, better use can be made of limited resources with better road safety programs as the end product. This inquiry has shown that Australian people are concerned about road safety and consider this national tragedy worth comment, thought and action on a national scale. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, many of whom are in the chamber today to listen to my speech on the presentation of this report. This Committee has kept its early promise of being a-political in its concern about road safety generally in Australia. I thank Committee members for their hard work and assistance during this Parliament, namely the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Franklin ( Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). I thank the staff, Mr Allan Kelly, Mrs Denise Denahy, Mr Simon De Vere and Miss Marie Ferris. I also thank the past staff of the Committee in this Parliament, Mrs Lyn Simons, Mr Paul McMahon, Ms Jennifer Goodger and Mrs Judy Terrel. Finally, on behalf of Committee members I also thank the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), and his staff, and Mr Bill Upton and officers of the Federal Office of Road Safety for their assistance in our common concern of achieving safer roads. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-I congratulate the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, for the way that she embarked on a very rigorous and determined effort as chairman of a bipartisan committee. Sometimes I thought she was overenthusiastic but I take it all back now. She has done her job in good heart and worked hard to try to develop a committee that has been at most times very interested in the goal of trying to cut down road deaths in Australia. Sometimes I think that the Committee is not as fashionable as others; so we do not get the publicity that we should. Some other committees, by getting on to trendy issues, get a heck of a lot of publicity. We see grotesque photographs in most of the newspapers in Australia each day. We see pictures of cars smashed up and read that four or five children have been killed. When I see those pictures the realisation comes to me that the Committee is worthwhile. Sometimes its work is repetitive and we go over the same things day after day but it is worthwhile. At the end of the tunnel at least we contribute. It is better than the slush we see in the gutter in this place. Just think about the blood in the gutter day after day which we read about in the newspapers. I found the Committee very interesting. I speak also on behalf of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). He has done a very good job. I am talking at the moment about members from my side. I cannot think of the names of all the honourable members on the other side who were members of the Committee but they are all good fellows. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) is away at the moment. He participated. On the other side, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman) did a very good job in a constructive way, day after day and week after week, trying to cut down the road toll in Australia. The members of the Committee and the Committee staff are dedicated. They realise that together we are trying to make an impact on the road toll in Australia. There are 365 road deaths every year. Of those, 10 per cent are young cyclists, invariably under the age of 21.We have a job to do and a responsibility. If the number of people who die on the roads each year died in a war there would be a hell of a hue and cry. Mrs Darling —Nearly 3,000 die. Mr GOODLUCK —That is right. The number is not 365; it is nearly 3,000, almost 10 people each day. Many people are injured. Ninety thousand road cyclists are injured each year. It is a big problem. We all have to face up to it. I think the report is excellent. We will be criticised for it. The States, with their petty jealousies, will say: 'Why are you trying to tell us what to do?' We are trying to help. I hope that we can be constructive. I hope that the States will pick up the Committee's recommendations to make our roads a safer place for young people to drive. I hope those people will realise that they will have to moderate some of the things they do if they are to stay alive and contribute to this wonderful nation. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. [COGNATE BILL: FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, 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 Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) as they are associated 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 the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(4.50) —The Australian fishing industry has assumed both national and international significance only in the last 15 to 20 years. Prior to that time it catered primarily to local communities and major cities. However, the creation of an expanded market for Australian seafoods provided the stimulus for the growth of the Australian commercial industry. If Australia is to expand its fishing industry and develop new fisheries, particularly for import replacement purposes, it will be necessary for fishermen to exploit the resources further off-shore. It is not the Government's role to inhibit this potential expansion of the industry, yet exactly this is occurring with the lack of an off-shore constitutional settlement program in operation. The history of the off-shore constitutional settlement makes interesting reading, particularly its more recent history; that is, since its referral by this all promises, no action Government to the desk of the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). The history appears to be no more. The proclamation has never been issued. What has happened to the now illusive settlement, collecting dust in the Attorney-General's rooms? The implications of having no working, effective off-shore constitutional settlement is a cause of great concern and justifiably so-to not only the fishing community but also myself and my Opposition colleagues. I intend to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 indicating our support for the measures raised by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and also our concern at the lack of finalisation of this piece of legislation. Without the settlement in place to formalise Commonwealth-State administration arrangements for each fishery, there is no clear determination of which fisheries the Commonwealth has sole, or even a major, responsibility for managing. Jurisdiction over minerals and fisheries are merely two elements concerning the off-shore constitutional settlement. However, the fishing concerns have been completely ignored by the Government. It was not until the mid-1970s that constitutional interpretation gave jurisdiction to the Commonwealth over fisheries beyond three miles from low water mark and the States jurisdiction over fisheries within three nautical miles. Nevertheless 1975, the year made famous for the return of a responsible, productive people's government-a soon to be repeated event-saw the High Court decision issuing Commonwealth jurisdiction from the low water mark to the three nautical miles mark. Rationalisation of the Commonwealth-State role has to be settled. States controlled up to three nautical miles, and the Commonwealth three to 200 miles. Fishing which crossed State borders and Commonwealth waters gave the impetus to the development of joint authorities, and thus off-shore constitutional settlement was finalised by Commonwealth and complementary State government legislation in 1982. Unfortunately, for the fishing industry, after the disastrous change of government it was to be re-examined and revised. It is now sitting somewhere in the Attorney-General's office. Instead, there are many fisheries which presently involve some Commonwealth input but which would, if the off-shore constitutional settlement were operational, become solely a State responsibility. Many fisheries already subject to State levies, in recognition of either, firstly, their management costs or, secondly, a perceived benefit arising out of the exclusive access status, may become subject to additional Commonwealth levies, due to present Commonwealth expenditure in administering complementary legislation outside the three nautical miles State water limitations. Such complementary legislation is merely an administrative aberration and could not be considered to be true fisheries management. There is no agreement that the Commonwealth is incurring costs as a part of managing those fisheries and as such could legitimately seek to recover those costs. The extent to which costs are recovered, according to the Minister in his second reading speech, 'will be determined in the light of costs and benefits that flow from management'. The Minister could not have been any clearer or have issued a more blatant statement of this socialist Government's true intention of revenue raising. This is nothing more than a resource rent tax. What would happen, I wonder, if it were to take that matter to the public. It is a crippling reward for entrepreneurial skills and initiatives, qualities foreign to my Australian Labor Party colleagues, but qualities nonetheless to which our great nation's success and future are attributed. There can be nothing more destructive than a tax of this kind and this is exactly what the Government is proposing. If the Government decides that the benefits-perhaps they are more appropriately described as profits flowing from a fishery subject to the Commonwealth levy-are excessive, the levy would then be varied to reflect the magnitude of these 'benefits'. Thus, in essence, the higher the profits, the greater the levy, causing a gradual destruction of all private enterprise initiatives in this country. The logical conclusion of cost recovery, as envisaged by the legislation, is that the entire Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industry could be funded by levies on the basis that administration of the Fisheries Act is of benefit to all who are subject to it. The fishing industry certainly maintains, and with reason, that many of the Department's management actions are of no benefit whatsoever to the industry. If the industry has to pay, it has a right to know exactly where and how the funds are to be spent. Does it go into the general public coffers and not just to revenue? There must be some system of equity. There is no reluctance on the fisheries' behalf to invest their money into research contributing to exploratory fishing or pre-seasonal prawn sampling , as they are currently in the practice of doing with a degree of help from the Commonwealth Government. But there is concern over the possible funding in unrealistic circumstances of the public services. Previous experience with cost recovery in the export inspection services has left the industry wary of exactly what costs are involved. There is no undertaking about which departmental costs will be included in the cost recovery calculations. There is no justification that conditions not available to private enterprise should be met by the levy. The costs of overservicing, the provision of excess staff, long service leave, superannuation, 17 per cent leave loading, as well as study leave, are discretionary costs accepted by the Commonwealth but not acceptable to the private employer. There is no justification that a competitive fishing industry should pay for Public Service conditions which are not available to the wider public. So much lip service has been paid by the Minister to the user pays principles. He has attributed much of this legislation's conclusion to its logic. Yet it has come to my attention, and I feel obliged to acquaint the Minister with the fact, that inherent in this principle is the 'user says' principle, which has been conveniently disregarded or forgotten. If the user is to pay, the user has the right to some say as to how the funds from the levies will be utilised. It comes as no shock to realise that the Government appears to have once again, in a pseudo-dictatorial fashion, completely and utterly denied industry any rights in the implementation of legislation. Consultation with or notification of the industry about this legislation prior to its introduction has been non-existent. One prominent member of the industry described to me the Government's consultation with the industry over the past year as appalling. The Government cries 'consensus' continually. Consensus with whom, I ask. It was certainly not in this case with the industry. It is the Opposition's policy to have lengthy negotiations with industry sources as they often have insights into the complexities of industry often missed by government and departmental advisers. The Minister to us appears more concerned with setting up legislation through which means he can raise more funds at will, the amount of which is unknown to the industry and to myself and is obviously lurking in the dim dark recesses of the Minister's mind. It was the special case of the northern prawn fisheries labouring under an excess of boats which initiated the concept of paying back the Government via the use of a levy on operating boats for the next five years, when it is hoped the total number of boats should have declined. Unfortunately, it appears to us that the Government has become overexcited and has used this opportunity to develop legislation covering all fisheries in general as a means of raising revenue, whereas the original intention was to overcome the problem in one particular part of the industry-the northern prawn fisheries. The northern prawn fisheries deserve commendation for their efforts of self- regulation and determination to preserve the fisheries for future generations. It needs to be stressed that the Government is not providing the loan. That loan of $5m has to be arranged on commercial terms and with commercial repayments. It is a responsible approach and I hope that those boat owners who will be leaving the industry will have the opportunity of resettlement in some other pursuit or some other opportunity for retraining so that they can continue to operate in private enterprise. It is hoped, too, that efforts of the industry in self- regulation will result in the prawn fishery not being overexploited and that those who remain in the industry will at least have a reasonable return for the efforts and risks undertaken. In regard to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I foreshadow that I shall move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the legislation should not have been introduced until completion of an off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and the States formalising areas of fisheries administration'. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(5.00) —I think we should pause for a moment to consider why the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 are necessary. If one looks at the course the fishing industry in Australia has taken over the last 20 years, one can see that it is in the state it is in through the neglect of the previous Government. The previous Government was simply never prepared to take the hard decisions that were necessary to ensure that we had a viable fishing industry in this country. I think that fact has to be recognised. Although some of the initiatives that we are taking are obviously unpopular with the industry, we have consulted with it. The industry realises that, unpalatable as those initiatives are, they are long overdue. We will get support from the industry for that reason. When we talk about Australia's fish resource, we are talking about a resource that belongs to all the people of Australia. It would be unconscionable if, in giving limited entry to these fisheries and thereby bestowing a very large economic rent value on the people fortunate enough to be in a limited entry fishery, some return to the public was not forthcoming. This legislation seeks to impose on the industry a small charge to make sure that money is available for the development of specific fisheries. The Government has spelt out quite clearly that the money will be made available to the industry for use in specific fisheries. The Government has no intention at all, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has given an assurance in this respect, of imposing levies in respect of fisheries that are struggling or are not in a position to pay. There is also no doubt that the fisheries in Australia that have done best and survived the best are those fisheries which are controlled. I refer to limited entry fisheries. In this regard I think that Western Australia has by far the best record. It is the most stable of the limited entry fisheries. I hope that, when we have managed to put all of the fisheries in Australia on this basis and we have a strong, stable industry, the efforts of the Minister will be recognised by the industry. I think his efforts have been absolutely tremendous. He is the first Minister who has spent so much time and effort looking after the interests of the fishing industry. It is nonsense for the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) to suggest that there has been no consultation. There has been an enormous amount of consultation with people in the industry. It is ongoing consultation. Until the electoral redistribution I represented the biggest fishing electorate in Australia and I know the extent of this consultation. I know that there are many people in the industry who now say that for the first time there is the ability to talk to government and government will listen to the problem that they have. The fisheries in Australia are in need of a lot more research. I personally believe that one of the things we need to do is to utilise the private sector by encouraging it to engage in much more fishery research. I think this is an initiative that this Government is looking at and can make a very big contribution to. It would seem to me to be far more efficient for the Government to give assistance to people who are interested in developing a new fishery. The private sector itself could undertake research and it would be very happy to have on board fishing inspectors and qualified people to aid them in that research. However, the main cost of carrying out this research would be borne by the private sector. If that fishery proved viable, it would be rewarded by being among the first into it. One area that is causing me considerable concern is that of the southern bluefin tuna. It is quite obvious that this industry has to be rationalised. This rationalisation will, in the long run, mean a drift of catch from Western Australia to other States, most likely to South Australia. I certainly would not agree with such a development in the long run. In the short term, it presents enormous problems. Some mechanism has to be worked out to ensure that the employment prospects in places like Albany and Esperance, which already have very high unemployment levels, are considered. I think a mechanism can be worked out. Such a mechanism would require a phasing in of any new arrangements over a two-year period. This would, of course, be contingent upon the necessary research being carried out to ensure that other fish were made available to supply the fish processing works in these areas. I am sure that the fish are there; I am sure that the potential is there. However, research will be needed and this research will only be carried out through proper management of the fishing industry. Another area that is concerning me is the development of the rock lobster industry in the north of Western Australia where the predominant species is the painted crayfish which does not readily pot. This fish does not pot in existing pots. But I believe there is every chance that, with the necessary research, we can develop pots that will ensure that this species can be trapped commercially. There is no doubt that there is a world-wide demand for crayfish. This is one area in which considerable extra benefit can be derived for Australia. At the same time a lot of employment and stability can be given to country towns that are now leading a very tenuous existence. I know from experience that a lot of this research can be carried out by the private sector with government co- operation. I am hopeful that we can ensure that assistance is given to the industry. Debate (on motion by Mr Drummond) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I wish to advise the House that today I called upon His Excellency the Governor-General and recommended to him that the House of Representatives be dissolved and that a general election for the members of the House of Representatives be held on Saturday, 1 December 1984. His Excellency has accepted my recommendation. Mr Speaker, may I depart from my prepared text and say this to you, sir, and to the House: While His Excellency has authorised me to indicate his acceptance of my recommendation, he will put that in writing and I expect to receive that tomorrow. When I receive his reply in writing I will table the exchange of correspondence between His Excellency and me. I have also asked the Governor-General to take the necessary action to enable an election to be held for half the Senate conjointly with the election for the House of Representatives. His Excellency has agreed to take this action. The details of the election timetables are: Issue of writs 26 October 1984; close of electoral rolls 2 November 1984; close of nominations 6 November 1984; polling day 1 December 1984; return of writs 24 January 1985. Referendums on the Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill 1984 and the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 will also be held on 1 December. The Parliament still has significant and essential Government legislation before it. The Government wishes this legislation to pass the House by 11 October to enable it to rise then. The Senate will clearly need to sit at least an extra week to deal with the essential legislation before it. I then propose to advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House of Representatives, probably on 26 October. Mr Speaker, when my predecessor as Prime Minister advised the double dissolution of the Parliament on the ever memorable 3 February 1983, he set in train a certain inevitability of events. The chief of those was, of course, the election of my Government on March 1983. But his decision to advise a double dissolution also significantly affected the electoral timetable of this, the Parliament of the Commonwealth. As a result of that decision, the timetable for simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate- which had been temporarily restored by the premature election of 1977-was once again disrupted. The consequence is that under the Constitution there must be an election for half the Senate in time to enable the newly elected senators to take their places in July 1985. In practical terms-involving considerations of the time required by the Australian Electoral Commission to complete the counting of votes-this means that the half Senate election could be held no later than April next year. It has, however, been the pattern over many years for elections for half the Senate to be held in the latter months of the preceding calendar year. Since 1949-leaving aside the three double dissolution elections-eight out of 10 such elections have been held in November or December and one other was held in October. The three separate half Senate elections, of 1964, 1967 and 1970, were all held in November or December. It is therefore absolutely clear that the decision to hold the election for half the Senate on 1 December conforms entirely with well-established custom, proper procedure and clear precedents. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I can understand, of course, why those on the other side desperately want to avoid an election. We can understand that. Virtually from the outset of my prime ministership I have made it very clear to the Parliament and public that I intended, if possible, and if consistent with the higher national interest, to realign the elections for the two Houses. Mr MacKellar —You can't even keep a straight face. Mr HAWKE —The reason I cannot keep a straight face is that I am looking at the joy all over the face of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). That is to say, there would be an election for the House of Representatives on the same day as the constitutionally inevitable election for half of the Senate. That is now possible. It is highly desirable. And it is certainly in the best interests of Australia. I do not believe that the wisdom and propriety of this course-my publicly declared intention-has been seriously questioned over the past 18 months. It was, of course, the reason my predecessor gave for the early election of 1977. But, Mr Speaker, there is one very significant difference between 1977 and now-and that is that, unlike in 1977, the course we are now taking has been publicly canvassed and I believe generally accepted as proper and correct, virtually throughout the lifetime of the present Parliament. Indeed , Mr Speaker, in no quarter has it been more generally acknowledged as inevitable than on the part of our opponents opposite-who have already committed and spent literally millions of dollars on an advertising campaign targeted on a November or December general election. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I am sure the Prime Minister will understand that the House becomes restive under these circumstances. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, as distinct from those opposite we are totally relaxed. Speaking of dollars, I should point out that I am informed that the cost of two separate elections would be of the order of $49m, against $30m for simultaneous elections. There are, I believe, two other reasons of considerable importance why the elections for the two Houses should be held simultaneously and why the simultaneous election should be sooner rather than later-in December rather than March or April. Firstly, the business community, upon whom rests so much of the effort for national economic recovery, has widely urged the need for a prompt end to the electioneering atmosphere, as a means of sustaining the confidence which together we have been able to generate. It also shares our concern over the frequency of election campaigns in Australia as a factor militating against confidence and stability. In particular, the retail trade is anxious to have the election over as long as possible before Christmas. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There seems to be a competition between the honourable members on my right and the honourable members on my left. I suggest that both groups remain silent. Mr HAWKE —That is the only competition there is going to be, Mr Speaker. Secondly, by the decision of both Houses-- Mr Ian Cameron —What I want to know, Bob, is-- Mr HAWKE —The honourable member should listen to this. Even he may be able to understand and appreciate it. By the decisions of both Houses the next Parliament is to be enlarged by 23 members in the House of Representatives and, consequent upon the Constitution, by two additional senators from each State. But those additional senators could not take their places until after the new and enlarged House of Representatives had been elected and had met. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, if an election were to be held for half the Senate alone, the additional senators would be, as it were, in a state of limbo for a period of anything up to 16 months after their election. That is an argument which should at least be appreciated by those on the opposite side of the House because they are in that state for a considerable amount of their time. Clearly, Mr Speaker, for this and every other reason, if the will and the mandate of the people are to be as fresh and as contemporary as possible under the Constitution, the elections for the two Houses should be held simultaneously . That, of course, is one of the reasons why we are resubmitting to the people, by way of referendum, the proposal to alter the term of senators so that it is linked to the term for the House of Representatives-to enshrine into the Constitution itself the principle of simultaneous elections. Its passage is necessary to restore stability and electoral predictability to our parliamentary system. The decision I have announced today restores that stability, simultaneity and contemporaneity for the next Parliament. By adopting the referendum proposal, the people of Australia can establish it for all future parliaments and for all future time. I have set out in some detail the more specific reasons for my recommendation today to the Governor-General-the technical, the practical, the legal and constitutional reasons. Over and above these, there are reasons of profound national importance why the people of Australia should now have the opportunity to pass their judgment upon the Government and to renew its mandate. This Government was elected to revive and revitalise an economy which was in the grip of the worst recession that Australia had known for 50 years. We have done that. We were elected to restore economic growth. We have achieved that to the extent that Australia now has the fastest growing economy of any of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We were elected to do what our predecessors had notoriously failed to do in their seven years-to fight unemployment and inflation simultaneously. We have created 250,000 new jobs in 18 months against the loss of almost 250,000 jobs under our predecessors . We were elected to implement a wide ranging but highly responsible program of social reform. That we have done. Above all-the very foundation of all that we have been able to achieve so far- we were elected to undertake our pledge to bring about a national reconciliation as the path to national recovery and reconstruction. We have ended at last the needless confrontation and division which disfigured Australian society for a decade. If all the great gains and achievements of the past 20 months are to be maintained and built upon, it is absolutely essential that there should be a long period of consolidation, co-operation and creativity-creativity not just in government but in business and industry and in the Australian community as a whole. The foundation of all this must be a period of political and economic stability and predictability which only this Government can provide and which this Government can best provide if it is granted at the earliest possible opportunity a new and reinvigorated mandate from the people of Australia. We are now at the very crucial stage of the national recovery. Even more than in the past 20 months, the need now is for firm, effective government to carry through and consolidate the gains made so far. The prices and incomes accord, the basis of non-inflationary recovery, has been spectacularly successful and its continued acceptance and success is absolutely vital. Yet we know that our opponents are pledged to the destruction of the accord, the dismantling of all the machinery which underpins it, and the dissipation of the spirit of co- operation and consensus which binds it together-indeed, in a very real and profound sense the spirit which now binds this nation together in a way we have not experienced before in peacetime. Here then is the overwhelming reason why we believe we are not merely entitled, but indeed bound, to seek a new mandate at the earliest opportunity. Yet, for all that has been achieved so far, there are still pressing problems facing the Government and the nation. There is, for this Government at least, a totally unacceptable level of unemployment and particularly youth unemployment. This we will continue to make one of our most urgent challenges. There is the urgent need-in human terms, nothing could be more urgent-to end the needless and absolutely groundless anxiety which has been created amongst our pensioners by an irresponsible and, indeed, thoroughly wicked and cruel campaign of fear and misrepresentation by our opponents. That alone would constitute an irrefutable justification for this election. There is the need for people once again to declare their determination that Medicare should endure. There is the need to deal the final blows to the tax avoidance industry in this country. There is the need not only to strengthen the unrelenting fight against organised crime by laws and machinery, as we are doing, but to fight it in the only way by which it can ultimately be won-by a nation and a parliament genuinely united in that fight. Here then are constituted overriding reasons of the highest national importance why we today are asking the people of Australia for a renewal of our mandate on 1 December. A new spirit of confidence and self-confidence has emerged in this nation. In the final analysis, everything we hope for in this great country of ours depends upon maintaining and fostering that spirit. Yet we have seen in recent months that there are persons in Australia, and I regret to say that there are persons in this House, who believe, however misguidedly, that they have some kind of vested interest in undermining that new spirit of national confidence and self- confidence. I believe that the people of Australia have already realised the nature and purpose of this campaign of denigration. I believe that they will not easily or quickly forgive its perpetrators. Mr Speaker, on 1 December I shall not merely be seeking from the people of Australia a verdict of faith and confidence in this Government; much more importantly, I shall be asking the people of Australia to proclaim once again their faith and confidence in themselves, their faith and confidence in the future of this great nation. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.29) —Nothing indicates the rush of this Government to an election more than the fact that we have had an announcement today, when the Governor-General has not even written the letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I hate to remind even honourable members on my side of the House of what transpired last year, but there was more than one letter. I would hate to think that another letter will come tomorrow and we will have to have some sort of encore of the performance we have just experienced. Frankly, the sheer hypocrisy of this decision by the Prime Minister is exceeded only by the hypocrisy of his speech today. I want to quote the Prime Minister on the subject of early elections. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister said: Under my government, parliaments will run their full time. No wonder there is a scepticism out in the community about this Government racing off to the polls. Is it not interesting that one of the most uncomfortable moments in the Prime Minister's career, as he struggled as to whether he should shake off the slag of the New South Wales Government or continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Neville Wran-we saw it in this Parliament today-was the precursor to his running to the Governor-General without even advising him in advance so that a letter could be prepared? The rush is symptomatic of the fear of this Government of Mr Wran being exposed continuously for what he is, of the mini-Budget which it will have to bring down and of its failure to answer for its crimes in regard to organised crime. All these factors are the reasons for the rush. I quoted what the Prime Minister said during the last election campaign. That quote was reported in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 15 February 1983, but it was only a reiteration of Mr Hawke's long-held views. I quote a couple of them: Well, I first of all take the view that governments should run their full term. It was his view, as stated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM on 20 March 1980 through to a later date, on the Derryn Hinch program on 3AW on 18 August 1982, before he became leader of his Party: We will take the view that the Government should run its full term. I listened with interest to the alleged reasons for this early election. In view of the Prime Minister's earlier undertakings and a firm commitment, so we thought, during the election campaign, no one will believe the reasons stated today. We heard that he had to rush off to Government House today. He could not even wait for the Governor-General to write a letter. It will not be received until tomorrow. He had to announce it in the Parliament today. The Prime Minister talked about the cost of holding two separate elections. We have said that if cost is a factor the Government could hold the election in late April or early May so that it would not disrupt the financial year. The Prime Minister cited sums of money such as $40m-plus to be avoided by having a dual election for the Senate and the House of Representatives. It will cost more than that for the measures which the Government has introduced for more parliamentarians and the cost involved in their accommodation. It will cost more than any election savings the Government alleges about bringing the two together. So it is quite clear that all the disruption and the uncertainty of an election campaign, which is now being forced on Australia, is because the Prime Minister does not have the strength or indeed, may I say, the guts to face the consequences of his policies and his actions for a full parliamentary term. He knows only too well that the economic recovery will falter next year, that unemployment will begin to rise again and that business activity will weaken. Instead of concentrating on stable and constructive economic policies that will turn the tentative economic recovery into sustained growth, this Prime Minister has abandoned that responsibility altogether in an act of sheer cynical political expediency. He is running to the polls before the recovery collapses under the weight of his policies, but that will be exposed to the Australian people. Let us remember again the example of his shoulder to shoulder support of Neville Wran until today when a question mark loomed not only on the Prime Minister's face but also in his utterances because he could not deliver either a rebuke to Mr Wran or support for him. He is running to the polls to avoid further controversy; but he will not avoid it because the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge will go on and on. The Senate will sit and expose the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party for what he is-a manipulator of the system of justice in New South Wales who stands shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister. Mr Wran is the Prime Minister's Party President, his Party adviser. Mr Wran is being constantly exposed. The Prime Minister well knows that Australians will increasingly ask why this Government has, in a deliberate act, decided to undermine the efforts of those who are fighting crime. The Government wishes to get the election running before Mr Costigan reports. The Government should not run away from the fact that people will want to know what is in the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and why the Prime Minister could not wait until next year so that we could have a full debate on that report. Talking about the saving of money, what about the advertisements on Medicare which are Government funded? I assume the Prime Minister will advise us tomorrow that all the taxpayers' money which is being spent on Government propaganda such as Medicare ads will cease from midnight tonight. I assume that will be done forthwith. Just as the Prime Minister raced to ask for consent to hold an election, I assume he will race to cut off the spending of taxpayers' money on this fraudulent campaign which seeks to prop up a fraudulent scheme such as Medicare, which has cost more and has given less than even the Government indicated, but far less than most Australians anticipated. That Government funded advertising must end and must end now. Before I go on to another example of broken promises by this Government, I remind the House-honourable members saw the Prime Minister leave the chamber as I was about to speak; time and again he will run from this House-that time and again he will refuse to debate with me here and outside the Parliament. Let us see whether he will renege on his undertaking of a debate during the election campaign. In 1980 Mr Hawke said of Mr Fraser: The so-called strong man of the Government will not debate in public because he is weak. Now it is Mr Hawke who is apparently the weakling. We have had no indication that there will be a debate between the Prime Minister and me. If there is not, the undertaking will be exposed for the lie that it is because in last year's election campaign, when he was asked whether, as Prime Minister, he would debate with the Opposition Leader, he said: Yes, I don't dodge debates. That commitment cannot be abandoned. I raise it now because the Prime Minister implied in the course of his speech that this election might be fought on the Government's record. Let us look at the elements of that record. It has to be admitted that when the Australian Labor Party won government in March 1983 it promised much. Sixteen months later on the eve of this unnecessary early election I think it is appropriate to spend a minute or two scrutinising the record of the Hawke Labor Government. Since the Hawke Government's election it has blatantly broken or reneged upon its promises and undertakings. I have a list, which I will release in the next day or so, of 118 promises which have been broken since the Australian Labor Party came to government. I know there are more, but we have brought these together. The broken promises range from petrol pricing cuts to devaluation and from the assets test to the exchange rate . Labor has broken just under two promises every week for 64 weeks, which amounts to one every three or four days. Some record! There might have been a lot of promise in the last election; there will not be too much promise going into this campaign, if one takes a line through what has transpired. In the Labor Party's policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, on 16 February 1983, he said: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. He continued: I'm not in the business and the Labor Party is not in the business of making promises that can't be fulfilled. Yet the Prime Minister and Labor have broken 118 of their promises in a mere 15 months. It amounts to a deception of the faith and an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. The Hawke Government has treated the Labor platform and policy speech, the basis on which it went to the people, as a mere scrap of paper. Just as it has torn up the paper, so too have its promises gone with it. Australians will judge Labor's next string of promises in the coming election against its performance to be seen from the list that I will release tomorrow. I am sure the verdict will be that Labor cannot be trusted to live up to its commitments. That is the reality flowing from its broken promises. So we will have an unnecessary election, but the fact that it is unnecessary does not mean that there will not be a fight by the parties in opposition to the last moment of that campaign. I say to the Government that we will seek to strip away the myths that have masked the emerging realities with respect to this duplicitous Government. We will go to the people. Not only will we explain to them the flaws and the faults in this Government that have impacted so severely on so many of them but also we will offer them an alternative which will look beyond the oppressive elements contained in the last policy speech of the Party of honourable members opposite. In contesting the next election the Liberal and National parties will strip away the last remaining vestige of confidence in those opposite, because we will go to the polls on the date nominated by the Prime Minister and we will win. [COGNATE BILL: FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984]Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Forrest, I remind honourable members that this is a cognate debate on the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(5.43) —I appreciate the significance of this important debate. I moved for the adjournment of this debate earlier today to enable a matter concerning the forthcoming election to be dealt with. I look forward to the election because it will be good to get back into government after 1 December. One of the reasons why we will be back in government is the type of legislation that we have before us. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has broadly outlined the coalition's opposition to this legislation, and I want to concur with him in that. I particularly want to speak about the local issues in Albany, where the bluefin tuna industry will be severely affected. I point out to the House that this legislation is one of the reasons why this Government is not doing well and will not win the next election. The Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 could well be described as a Bill to add insult to injury. The Government has drastically curtailed an important part of our fishing industry, refused compensation and adjustment assistance, and then brought down this Bill to require a levy payment from surviving operators. This Bill is a final twist of the knife in what has been a particularly ungenerous response to a part of Western Australia that is too often disregarded by Canberra. Tuna fishing has for some years been a major component of the economy of the Albany region. It gives direct employment to 145 people and to a further 231 in the processing and servicing industry. The sum of $2m a year is brought directly into Albany. Moreover numbers of people were encouraged into this industry after 1978 when whaling ceased at Albany. It is relevant to note that that industry's demise was due less to economic factors than to political factors, and that the interests of Albany were sacrificed to public opinion in the big cities of the eastern seaboard. It came as a shock to the southern bluefin tuna fishery at Albany that the industry would suddenly have to be curtailed. Earlier there had been no indication from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or any such body that breeding stocks were in danger. I firmly believe that when an industry such as this has to cut back operations because of government action, rather than the law of the market-place , affected operators have every right to expect adjustment help. Instead we have a government that hides behind an Industries Assistance Commission report in refusing assistance, and then forces what remains of the industry to pay its own management costs. During the last two weeks Albany tuna fishermen learned that their quotas for the new season would be based on 40 per cent of the previous best catch, not the 50 per cent figure they had been led to expect. This has put them further behind , whether their choice is to leave the industry or consolidate within it. Few can avoid the choice, and the quota system by itself does very little to solve the problem. The Government can hardly congratulate itself on its rejection of the initial IAC recommendation of limiting the Western Australian tuna catch to 1,000 tonnes. This in effect would have wiped out the industry in Albany and the south coast of Western Australia. The quota system, however, does nothing to solve a cost burden that is now to be increased through this thoughtless piece of legislation. The small size of the quotas in their final form will not provide sufficient cash when sold to re-establish in another industry. I remind the House that the other fisheries off the south coast are fully exploited and that tuna operators can hardly expect to transfer to them. Common justice demands that they get a fair measure of adjustment assistance. Rural adjustment funding would be a suitable avenue, had not this Government decided to cut it back 40 per cent in the Budget. The need will remain. Equally, the Government has an obligation to assist those remaining in the southern bluefin tuna industry, the very people whom it now plans to hit with a levy. It should be obvious that if the tuna industry is to remain viable in nearly all cases the fishermen will have to buy additional quotas. It is equally certain that this could be a severe financial strain, when boats are being paid off and other costs are being met. Surely the Government could have looked to interest free loans as a means of practical assistance. This would hardly be classified as a handout. Instead these operators are to be visited with an additional cost. This Bill is carefully non specific as to the amount of levy that may be payable. On the one hand we might hope that this Government will show a belated sense of justice and impose a very small levy on the tuna industry. On the other hand we might be concerned that the discretion given to the Government could result in a quite unreasonable imposition that it is simply not game to bring before this House. As a matter of principle we should be reluctant to pass legislation that relies so heavily on ministerial discretion. Mr Rocher —The price of quotas will go through the roof. Mr DRUMMOND —That is true. Given the Government's record towards the south coast tuna fishery over recent weeks, I am suspicious about any open-ended arrangements on financial levies. According to this Bill, fishing licenses will be granted only on condition that the levy is paid. Quite apart from the injustice of imposing new costs on people who had the right to expect financial aid, we should question the fairness of requiring our primary industries to carry these sorts of managerial costs. Fishing, like any other primary industry, cannot raise its prices at will to meet costs, particularly those of labour and fuel. Primary industry should not get handouts except in cases of disaster or government-imposed cutbacks, and does not ask for them. We do however need to be mindful of the massive subsidies given to primary industry overseas. The management of tuna stocks, as with any other national resource, benefits all Australians, and not simply those who are currently involved in the fishing industry. For this reason the community should carry the managerial costs. Moreover, the Japanese are benefiting from our management arrangements in their use of the Australian fishing zone. I understand that access fees from the Japanese long line fleet last year exceeded $2m; a figure of this size can surely go a long way to funding the management program. A serious deficiency in the quota arrangement has added to the problems faced by the full time southern bluefin tuna fishermen seeking to remain viable. Fishermen using other than pole-line methods are allowed to take up to 5 tonnes without reference to the quotas. This allowance has surely reduced tuna quotas from what they might otherwise have been. If too many people avail themselves of this 5 tonne non-quota, surely it threatens the overall management program. These people will be exempt from the operation of this Bill. The injustice of the levy becomes more apparent when it is realised that it is paid by only some of those catching tuna, who are dependent on the industry. The idea of limited entry into the Southern bluefin tuna industry is seriously undermined. Accordingly, management levies become a farce. I return to the point that Albany has been treated with peculiar insensitivity, first by the IAC and then by the Government. Its bland comments that only a small proportion of fishermen in the western sector are dependent on tuna conflicts with the solid evidence available from Albany. I cannot see the justice of proposals that those leaving an industry be financed by those remaining in it, when this adjustment is being forced by government intervention . It is altogether removed from the example of a farm too small to be viable in today's market, where the neighbour who buys it finances the departure of the seller into another field of employment. This Government has imposed something like a 30 per cent cut on the national tuna catch. Its reasons may be sound, but the existing operators should not be expected to bear the total cost. While the IAC did not recommend compensation, it noted that the Government was not precluded from any decision to provide adjustment help. The response has been this Bill and the added cost that it will involve. We can only question the consistency of a Government that talks about compensating one small group of Australians for land that was occupied by their remote ancestors, and then denies responsibility for people whose livelihoods are drastically affected by Government action. This Bill is just another episode in the catalogue of shabby treatment being meted out not only to Albany and the south coast fishing industry, but also to the people of Australia generally. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.53) —The Hawke socialist Government at this very moment is engaged in an act of international stupidity and domestic vandalism. Today it is taking decisions that will certainly cost hundreds of jobs in and around Hobart, that will definitely further damage our already shaky trade relations with Japan and that must call into question the competence of a senior Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table. Over the last few days the Australian Government has been involved in negotiations with the Japanese tuna fishing industry over its right of access to Australian waters. This is an annual event where agreements are made to protect the southern bluefin tuna, to protect the interests of the Australian fishing industry and to ensure that the Japanese industry has fair and reasonable access to our fishing grounds, for which it pays a fee. But last week all semblance of a fair go and reasonableness went out the window . The Minister's Department has taken a position that effectively bans the Japanese from fishing the southern bluefin tuna in southern Australian waters. This means that the Japanese fleet will have no reason to visit the port of Hobart, at a cost of some $3.5m worth of business each year to small business in and around Hobart, in and around the Denison electorate, as well as causing the loss of hundreds of jobs. The figure is as high as 300 to 400 jobs which are dependent directly and indirectly on these visits. This decision is a direct attack on Hobart. The Minister is insisting that the Japanese also set a quota on southern bluefin tuna that they catch in international and Australian waters. That sounds reasonable enough. But let me put it in perspective. The total Japanese catch of southern bluefin tuna from the Australian fishing zone last year was some 1,500 tonnes; that is, from all Australian waters, not just southern oceans. The Australian fishermen's own quota, recently set by this Minister, from next year will be 14,500 tonnes. That 1,500 tonnes to be taken by the Japanese is part of a total catch of some 18,000 tonnes taken in international waters. I repeat that the Japanese quota is 1,500 tonnes and the Australian fishermen's quota is 14,500 tonnes-nearly 10 times the size of the Japanese quota. The Japanese rightly say that the question of how much of this stock they catch in international waters should be decided at a trilateral government to government level between the Japanese, Australian and New Zealand Governments, and not imposed upon them by officials from the Minister's Department. The Japanese have been fishing international waters for decades and understand the critical importance of maintaining the parental biomass of the stock. From 1972 the Japanese fishermen have voluntarily entered into a program of deliberately reducing the number of southern blue fin caught and the total weight. It must be understood that the Japanese fish deeper for the larger fish especially to meet demand for their sashimi market back home. They do not fish for the juvenile stock found in waters around Western Australia and off parts of South Australia. Only a few days ago I was informed that the Japanese, who last week made a number of significant concessions over the number of hooks used by the fleet and in respect of the time they spend in sections of the fishery, have been told in effect: 'Go home-you are not wanted here'. This is a scandal that will have long lasting repercussions in our relations with Japan, and the finger will be pointed at the Minister. The Japanese tuna fishing industry is now saying that it will have to mount a campaign in its own country against Australia. It says that it will result in a crack in the entire good trading relations between Australia and Japan. They feel betrayed, frustrated and let down. They have been down to Hobart to try and win local support and they got it. They have been using the offices of the Japanese Embassy in Canberra to try and get help but even that does not seem to have made any impression on the Department. They even went to see the Hon. Ken Wriedt, Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, former Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and a man regarded as one of the finest Ministers, if not the finest Minister, in the Whitlam era. He understood their problem, and I understand that he has endeavoured to assist them. It is a pity he is not back in his old chair during the current negotiations. As Federal member for Denison, and on behalf of my colleague the Federal member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) I am speaking out, not just on behalf of the interests of the people of Hobart who will be very adversely affected by this but because I want to demonstrate just how relations between nations can be affected by something as trivial, as insensitive and as blinkered as the negotiations currently under way. The Minister must step in and sort out this problem once and for all. Maybe he has snubbed his nose at the Japanese because he believes the local industry has to be protected. I believe the local industry should be protected. I have been the honorary legal adviser to the Professional Fishermen's Association of Tasmania for the past 16 years, having taken over from my father in that position. I have very firm views about our industry. I make it quite clear that we believe the local industry must be protected. We say to the Minister that he simply has to do something to correct the impression given because, as my colleague the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), who is sitting next to me at the table, will confirm, the Minister does not seem to be going terribly well in his primary industry negotiations with Japan. It may well be that the Minister's decision is motivated by the pending election announced only a few minutes ago. We do believe that the local industry must be protected, but there is no local tuna industry in Tasmania and if the Japanese are forced out of the port of Hobart there will be nothing to fill the void. I repeat: $3.5m a year is now to be lost to the port of Hobart because of the way in which the Minister has negotiated, and 300 to 400 jobs directly and indirectly will be lost. I was involved in negotiations each year they came up under our Government and I always understood that the Federal Government did recognise the industry's enormous impact on the economy of Hobart and southern Tasmania. I suggest that the Minister is putting votes ahead of our relations with Japan. It is simply not good enough. I ask the Minister to intervene now and to get back on the right track. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a telex sent by the Japan Tuna, International Division, which points out in great detail the matters to which I have adverted and which calls upon those involved directly and indirectly, in the interests of Hobart and Tasmania, to do everything they can to get this Minister and this Government back on the right track. Leave granted. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.02) —in reply-It is obvious from the comments of Opposition spokespeople-that is, the Peacock fascist Opposition-that the Opposition is embarrassed-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for a withdrawal of that. The Minister said 'Peacock fascist Opposition'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Speaker has ruled previously on such language. For consistency, I continue the ruling. Mr KERIN —I withdraw. The Opposition is obviously embarrassed, hence the extreme language, particularly by the last speaker, the honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman), who displayed a thoroughly irresponsible, un-Australian attitude to this matter. I will get on to that in a moment. The Opposition is embarrassed because when we came into office there was not one fisheries management regime in place. The Opposition attitude, over all the years it was in government, was that it must wait until the industry has agreed. If ever there is a primary industry that really finds difficulty in agreeing about the way a resource will be managed, it is the fishing industry. It is a common resource and the problem is overutilisation of that resource and overcapitalisation of the industry exploiting it. The industry has been crying out for management and, no matter which fishing port one goes to or which group one talks to, they all say the same thing: We just have to get these fisheries managed and we have to get effort out of the fisheries. No matter where one goes, they say we have to get effort out of the fisheries. The last Government was so negligent and irresponsible that some fisheries were approaching the point of extinction. A classic example is the southern bluefin tuna fishery. New South Wales developed this fishery to a large degree in the early 1960s and that State has been just about denied a southern bluefin tuna fishery because the fishery has all but been fished out. The stock, the biomass, has now fallen to such an extent that we are looking down the barrel of this resource being extinct in 11 to 13 years, according to some calculations, and we have to put in place some management of that resource. Unlike the honourable member for Denison, who is simply irresponsible, the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) at least touched on some issues concerning his electorate and so his comments had some validity. I shall quietly go through the points concerning the southern bluefin tuna fishery, seeing that this is what people want to speak about and not the Fisheries Licences Levy Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I will get back to those in a moment. Last year we introduced an interim management plan. As soon as we formed government we tried to get this plan in place, in conjunction with the Australian Fisheries Council-it is not the Commonwealth Government that takes the decisions; it is the Australian Fisheries Council, made up of all the governments-and the tuna task force, which is the industry's representation in terms of the management of the resource. Last year we imposed a quota of some 19 ,000 tonnes. We divided the zone into two-an eastern sector and a western sector -and we put in a purse seine quota because the basic biological problem is that too many small fish are caught in Western Australian waters. We put on a size limit there too to try to stop this happening but it did not work, because the fish were so small that the Western Australian fleet looked like being shut down at one stage. If fishermen caught so many small fish, rather than take them in and lose their licences they would throw them overboard. That was the allegation . We had to take a tough decision even with the interim plan last year and at one stage I shut down the purse seining industry because it had reached its quota. We are trying to get management that will stick, on the basis of the fundamental biology of the resource itself. Of that quota of 19,000 tonnes last year we caught about 15,000 tonnes. This year, with an agreed management plan in place, again following consultation with the State governments and the tuna task force, we dropped that figure to 14,500 tonnes. We have taken a different approach in that there is no size limit, but the emphasis is on seasonal closures with a per boat quota imposed on the basis of set criteria. It is to be applied to Australian boats right across the fishery. That has been put in place and in the last week or so each boat owner has had telegraphed to him the amount of quota that he will have. Of course we have an appeals provision because some people will be disadvantaged. Last year the Japanese caught about 18,000 tonnes and, having regard to the interests of the resource, we thought it was fair enough, seeing that we were applying very strict management to our own fishermen, that they should agree in the long term interests of the whole tuna fishery-in accord with the views of our scientists, amongst whom there is no disagreement-to go to about 17,000 tonnes. It was proposed that New Zealand, which has about 1,200 tonnes, should come down to around 1,000 tonnes. The Japanese said that they wanted us to chop our quota down to about 10,000 tonnes so that they could have 25,000 tonnes. No one owns the resource but we are in a fundamental negotiating situation. The Japanese Ambassador spoke to me on this matter last Saturday night and officials are talking again today. The sort of gutless un-Australian thing being done by the honourable member for Denison today suggests that the Japanese-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I have been in two parliaments and I have never heard a Minister refer to 'gutless un-Australian' as the Minister just has. I take offence at that. I am defending my electorate and my State. I submit that the terms 'gutless' and 'un-Australian' are both unparliamentary and I request you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to require the Minister to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member finds the words offensive. Will the Minister withdraw please. Mr KERIN —I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I remind the honourable gentleman-- Mr McVeigh —It can't be qualified; he has to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has withdrawn. The honourable member for Darling Downs will be quiet. Mr KERIN —If the honourable member for Denison wishes to set those standards, with the sort of language he uses in this House he will find that most of his speeches from now on are severely truncated. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr KERIN —I am standing up for Australian fishermen. If the honourable member for Denison went around the fishing ports where Australian fishermen are-- Mr McVeigh —He is always around. Mr KERIN —That is a lie, too. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not use that language. Mr KERIN —He would realise the nature of the problem we are facing here. We are negotiating with the Japanese on the exploitation of this resource. We do it as friends. I have been to Yaizu, a port in Japan, and I have had two conversations with the Ambassador. The analogy I put forward is that the Japanese politicians did not weaken their Government's case when we or the United States were trying to get greater access for our beef. This irresponsible Opposition tries to weaken the case for what we are trying to do for the Australian fishermen. It is a bit hard to figure out the position of foreign fishing in Tasmania in terms of the words of the honourable member for Denison. He is against any move for joint ventures involving Russians. I understand that other people in Tasmania are against joint ventures involving Koreans. We are in favour of the Japanese although some people in Tasmania are ambivalent about finance if it comes from Singapore. In respect of joint ventures and fisheries management we have to apply a fundamental concentration on the fishery resource itself. That is what we are doing. The honourable member for Denison tonight has displayed that he has no idea of fisheries management. He is simply taking a parochial point of view without focusing on the issue. The Bills really provide a basic authority to raise a levy for management. Unlike the previous Government, we are putting in place fisheries management plans. We are putting them in the northern prawn fishery, the Torres Strait fishery, the east coast trawl fishery, the south-east trawl fishery, the scallop fishery, the southern shark fishery, and the southern bluefin tuna fishery. For all these fisheries virtually at once to get management plans requires funds. We got those funds in the Budget. We really ought to nail this: These Bills are designed only to set up ways and means. In other words, this is enabling legislation so that when these fisheries are in better shape they will be able to pay for the management of the fishery by the fishermen. In the Budget this year I got nearly $670,000 for the southern bluefin tuna fishery; $1.267m for the Torres Strait fishery; and $5m loan guarantee for the voluntary licences entitlement buy-back scheme. For the interest of honourable members opposite, I am trying to point out that we are engaged in putting in place for the first time in this country fisheries management plans which, by definition, cost money. Most of this money goes to the States because they do the regulation and the work on shore. We work with the States. To be quite frank , not many cheers come from this process because the problems are so large and so many individuals will be affected, but we are putting management plans in place. We are not shrinking from the need to have fisheries management in this country. The basic principle is the resource itself, but we also need to understand something about management. As a result of fisheries management overcapacity is reduced, the overutilisation of the resource is stopped, and the industry becomes quite profitable. Where State fisheries-fisheries which are entirely within one State's borders-have adopted management plans they have been restored to economic health. We are trying to do likewise where fisheries resources cross State borders. The Opposition raised the nonsensical scare that this legislation is designed to raise revenue. In my second reading speech I said that that was simply not on . The legislation is simply part of our general approach to fisheries management . As a matter of fact, the States do not shrink from raising revenue. I can nominate some of the fisheries in the various States, but there is no need to do so. We have no intention of raising revenue with this legislation. The Opposition also made the charge that there has been no consultation. That is absolute nonsense. We set up the Interim Fishing Industry Consultative Panel and consulted with the Australian Fishing Industry Council, a strong council with representation at various State levels. Most fisheries matters are thrashed out in the Australian Fisheries Council. The fishermen in the various States relate to the State fisheries Ministers more closely than they do to the Commonwealth. We consult those fisheries for which the Commonwealth has a clear responsibility. Of the 291 boats in the northern prawn fishery, our officers have actually got on board 242 boats. Another example is the south-east trawl fishery. Officials have visited every co-operative and every fishermen's meeting up and down the coast of New South Wales, around Victoria, in Tasmania and South Australia. It is absolute nonsense to talk about no consultation. I attended a meeting on Thursday Island with respect to the Torres Strait fishery with the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). I have been to Esperance with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) on southern bluefin tuna. Two weeks ago I was in Port Lincoln with the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). Last Saturday I was in Eden with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), and recently I was in Launceston talking to people about the scallop fishery. I was in Groote Eylandt with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) to discuss the northern prawn fishery. It is simply nonsense for the Opposition to speak about no consultation having taken place. My officials have been the most assiduous in any administration's history in terms of consultation with fisheries. The consultations they have had and the various task forces and scientific committees on which they have been represented is of enormous credit to them. I suggest that I, as Minister, have visited more fisheries and taken more interest in this issue than has any other Minister in this country. There is no ambition to raise revenue from this levy. It is enabling legislation mainly designed to put in place a mechanism whereby a fishery can eventually impose its own levy for the management of the resource once a management plan is in place and the fishery is restored to economic health. Of course, there will be consultation with the fishermen and the States again at that time. A couple of substantial matters were raised by the honourable member for Darling Downs at the commencement of his comments. One was the off-shore constitutional settlement which the Government has under review. I have sought urgent and separate consideration of the fisheries element as a result of pressure from the Fisheries Council and the industry. If the fisheries element proceeds, it will provide improved and more efficient management of various fisheries under one jurisdiction. However, neither the levy nor these Bills are dependent for their success on the introduction of the off-shore constitutional settlement. Levies will be imposed in relation to specific fisheries after full consultation with the industry and the States concerned. Levies could apply only to fisheries for which the Commonwealth has the sole or major responsibility. They could not apply to fisheries for which the States are solely responsible. We are not setting out on a path of raising revenue, as are some States. The legislation contains simply a levy mechanism; it is enabling legislation. 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. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(6.18) —by leave-I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the legislation should not have been introduced until completion of an off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and the States formalising areas of fisheries administration'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hall, SteeleAldred, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M.Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.28) —I will speak for only one minute to say to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that he cannot get away with what he is doing to Hobart, Tasmania, and our trade arrangements with Japan. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. [COGNATE BILLS: MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGG EXPORT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and Orders of the Day Nos 4 to 9, Government Business, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, but put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on these seven measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(8.01) —The Opposition, in speaking to this legislation, seeks to amend both the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984 and the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984. In relation to the Meat Export Charge Bill, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the provisions of the bill, the House is of the opinion that the date set for the coming into operation of the legislation should be 2 years after the date upon which it receives the Royal Assent'. The amendment is seconded by the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). The Australian meat industry is in a volatile position. Cattle numbers are down from 33.4 million in 1976 to 21.8 million. There are expectations of slight but definitely not dramatic increases over the coming four to five years which perhaps will take the numbers to 25 million. The industry has experienced a decade of disinvestment and a severe crisis in the meat processing sector as well as one of the worst droughts experienced in this country. In reward for good behaviour, this socialistic, anti-rural Government, in its 1983-84 Budget, increased the slaughter levy by 200 per cent to $5.40 per head of cattle in order to fund inefficient export inspection services. By mid-1984 many abattoirs were refusing to pay the increased levies and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, coupled with the support of producer organisations, had foreshadowed legal action to challenge the viability of the legislation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has introduced legislation which will completely restructure the export inspection charging system. The legislation splits meat inspection charges into two components-a flat charge of $2.55 and a specific export component, setting the maximum rate for exports of 4 .8c per kilogram. Existing legislation sets a rate of $10.80 per head for uniform slaughter charges. It provides for regulations which set operative rates at 2.4c per kilo for exports and $2.55 for slaughter charges. There is major opposition, and rightly so, within the industry to these proposals as they effectively disadvantage the export sector of the meat industry, which is most exposed to international competitiveness-judging from this Government's policy, a concept far from its interest-and is a spearhead of livestock markets in Australia. Although, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, the legislation does not materially affect the amount of revenue received, it drastically affects distribution between the export and domestic sectors, the export sector being made worse off with a 12 per cent increase, while domestic cattle inspection costs decline. Is there any more blatant anti-export policy in existence? It appears to be the unwritten policy of this Government gradually to cripple the export earner of this nation. It is no wonder that the industry's export sector cannot cope with these new proposals against a background of disinvestment and unprofitability. It receives little assistance compared with most other industries-one-fifth of the average amount given to the manufacturing sector-and it already pays a disguised export tax via the tariff. If this Government had a bone of responsibility in its make-up, it would take note of the recommendations issued by the Interim Inspection Policy Council, which recently held an inquiry into the level of industry charging for export inspection service activities. Its key recommendation of a two-year moratorium and a retrospective reduction in the charging base back to October 1983, when the 200 per cent increase took effect, were completely rejected by the present regime. It is a matter of disappointment that, whilst the Minister agreed with the recommendation of his Council, he did not even put it to the Cabinet. That is disappointing. It raises the question: Why have an industry recommendation council if one bypasses and, in effect, laughs at its recommendations? The Minister said that this charge was a discriminatory charge and a charge which would reduce the export competitiveness of the Australian meat industry. The Opposition has great difficulty in understanding the reasoning behind the Minister's statement. He would be far more honest if he took it on the chin and said that he is a member of a Cabinet which has an anti-rural bias and, notwithstanding his advocacy, it in effect laughs in his face. The Minister's second reading speech states: Because of budgetary restraints . . . the Government did not agree that there should be a two-year moratorium on implementing the export charge nor that the reduced cost base be made retrospective to 1 October 1983. The Government, unfortunately, seems to be able to find money for many other matters which are not necessary and which certainly do not contribute to creating jobs and creating opportunities for the development of this great nation. However, as a matter of priorities, in a tight budgetary situation in which limited funds are available for allocation, those priorities are beginning to display themselves when no allowance is made for an industry which earns for this nation $1.2 billion in export income. The report to which I referred stated that the gross profitability of the export industry was only 2.2c per kilo. It concluded: In the short term there is a compelling case for assistance to be given to the industry through a reduction in the export inspection charge. It also stated: What is clear from the Council's detailed examination is that it is hard to imagine a substantial increase in inspection charges (i.e. the 200 per cent increase in the 1983/84 Budget) coming at a worse time. In summary, the Minister appointed an advisory group to take evidence. His whole idea in restructuring the various statutory authorities is to obtain consensus. However, when this industry policy group ascertains the position, advises the Minister, tells him of the difficulties, he completely ignores it. What is the sense of having an industry policy council if one is just going to laugh at it? If I served on such a policy council I would resign because, in effect, the Minister is saying to me: 'I have no confidence in you'. I do not think it is possible to have two shillings each way in matters like this. One either believes in a policy or subscribes to a philosophy or one does not. There is absolutely no way whatsoever in this situation that the Minister can be Mr Nice Guy without having the courage of his convictions and putting the recommendations to the Cabinet. The Minister himself appointed this industry policy group. He received the full support from the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. So he had total agreement from the committee of review, the people concerned in the production of the product and the people who were exporting. Yet, the Minister did not even put the recommendations to Cabinet. He was scared. He lacks intestinal fortitude, and that is what concerns me. I want to say for our part, so that there will be no confusion whatsoever, that it is the Opposition's policy to act fully upon what we believe are most learned recommendations. We do not laugh at those most learned recommendations, as does the Minister. It is our policy to pay the full cost of export inspection services consistent with what is done in both the dairy and egg industries. I might say that the governments of our competitors, New Zealand, the United States of America and Argentina, pay the full cost of inspection services. So I have great difficulty in comprehending how we can remain internationally competitive with these countries when we have a government which imposes very high costs-as much as $10 and $11 per head-on high quality export cattle grown in my own State. I do not know how we can remain internationally competitive when these costs are not applied by our competitors. It is ironic to note that while this Minister pays lip service and offers sympathy in his actions he fully rejects the recommendations. The Minister has made public statements on the subject. I would not accuse the Minister; I am far too kindly a soul to do that. Perhaps because he was a little nervous and in a bid to win votes, particularly at the coming election, he has recognised that a levy is a disincentive to exporters and he is unhappy about that. Crocodile tears are absolutely no use to farmers and meat producers who are going broke. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) know what I am talking about; they understand the situation. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) knows that farmers cannot live by tears. They have to be presented with something of real substance. I would have thought that an ounce of action is worth 100 tonnes of sympathy. I ask the Minister to give us an ounce of action rather than just the 100 tonnes of crocodile tears that we get from him. This matter is further compounded when we read that the Minister, when he fronts up to people, admits quite openly that the administration of inspection charges is inefficient, that the costs could be cut by up to $12m. But only a few days before when addressing the Sydney Rural Press Club he said that he was concerned about our rural policies and that these costs were going to increase Commonwealth revenue by so many millions of dollars. He thought that when we gained office after 1 December we would continue with these inefficient policies and fail to update the procedures he is introducing. There is absolutely no way in the world that when we are in government we will stand idly by and see meat inspectors in the Northern Territory being on full pay and doing no work. There is no way in the world that we would put up with that sort of academic nonsense. Mr Ian Cameron —Give them the sack. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Maranoa took the words out of my mouth. He said: 'Give them the sack'. But the Minister would not have the courage to do that. He would go along with his socialistic ideas of the international brotherhood of man and say: 'You cannot sack them. You must pay them to live in glorious luxury while the meat producers of Australia go broke'. But the Minister himself said, notwithstanding the criticism that he gave at the Sydney Rural Press Club, that we should not fund these amounts unless we expend X millions of dollars. He said that the administration of the inspection charges is inefficient and that costs could be cut by up to $12m. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you would be like me. You would have extreme difficulty in understanding the motives of a Minister who in one forum can make himself popular criticising the Opposition for being efficient, realising that many areas of the inspection service could be cut down. When faced with a pre- election commitment situation in respect of which he has to try to buy votes, he is not responsible and does not act like a statesman. He admits that he could cut inspection costs by up to $12m. I am a fairly simple sort of soul and I ask him why he does not cut this $12m now and not in two months or three months time . What is the Minister going to do about this inefficiency? Being unhappy is simply not good enough. The farmers in the bush do not really worry about whether the Minister is unhappy or happy. What they want is an efficient service which they do not have to pay through the neck for. The saying that actions speak louder than words has never been more appropriate. When this Government has to account for its actions at the polls, the Australian people will voice their rejection. So much for the Meat Export Charge Bill in respect of which I have indicated we will move an amendment. We will do so for the simple reason that the policy group asked by the Minister to make a recommendation said that there should be a moratorium for two years on inspection charges after meat had been slaughtered and was waiting for export. We believe that the Minister, if he had been fair dinkum, would have accepted that recommendation and would have shown some concern for the industry. The Bills we are debating are Budget Bills which deal with Government revenue. We, of course, have given a solemn undertaking in respect of such Bills. I would like to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who, as a man of his word, has indicated all along that we would not stop the passage of Budget Bills. It is the responsibility of the Government to indicate what financial controls it is putting before the Parliament. But we, for our part, will not back down from our pledge not to stop Budget Bills. The honourable member for Kooyong has been a man of principle and solidarity in the period that he has been Leader of the Opposition. Notwithstanding the enormous pressures that have been placed upon him, he has not deviated from that policy. I believe he should stand very high indeed in the eyes of the Australian population for adhering to his statesman-like statement, unlike some of our colleagues in another place. I know that the honourable member for Maranoa and other speakers will cover matters in more depth in their speeches as well as these aspects that I have had the opportunity of only glancing over. I also want to talk about those very important areas of primary industry, dairying and egg production. Efficient, consistent and quality export inspection procedures in any industry are essential ingredients to maintaining good trade relations and international competitiveness. The Bills concerned with the dairy, meat and egg industries are aimed at amending the charging procedures for export inspections to reflect the changes in the manner of export inspection procedures yet to be implemented. In considering the dairy industry the Government seems to have become slightly over-enthusiastic and to have jumped the gun. It is proposing legislation to change present charging methods on the basis of new procedures before these procedures, still in their trial stages, are even finalised-appropriately a typical case of the egg before the chicken. Opposition members, as well as industry, are totally unsatisfied with these Bills, and justifiably so. The Minister claims that the Department of Primary Industry has been having extensive consultations with the industry on these new inspection procedures, saying, and I quote from his second reading speech: New procedures have been developed in close association with the industry concerned. This appears to have been the case with the egg industry but not so with the dairy industry. One of the nation's largest export dairy industry firms, Ibis Milk Products, in which the Department of Primary Industry is experimenting with new procedures on a trial basis, has had to date one meeting six months ago and, I have been led to believe, one since. Firms are still awaiting further meetings and satisfactory explanations. They have now been informed that the new procedures will not come into being until next year as the Department has decided that research must still be done. This loose association, which the Minister is so fond of spouting about, appears to have been slightly one-sided. The Department of Primary Industry has sent out an enormous amount of literature that is inconcise and confusing, with no feedback from the firms themselves. Meeting times have been continually changed by the Department putting them off over the past 12 to 18 months. Maybe there are internal discussions but no research has been done at the factory floor level. No real explanation has been forwarded and the firms have been able to do no adequate costing. The Department expects that charges will fall but cannot say for certain, nor can it say what the new charges will be. The DPI claims that costs will decline because inspectors will cease to be full time and will become part time. No explanation has been given as to what will happen to the superfluous inspectors. Although the Commonwealth will meet the expenses of changing over to this new system, the effects on the export dairy industry have the potential to be crippling because there simply has not been adequate advice given to the industry. This record, to clear-thinking people, constitutes grave doubts as to this Government's ability responsibly to administer its duties. The underlying theme of this new charging arrangement is based on the user pays principle. These charges are part of a scheme to recover 50 per cent of the costs of inspection by the Commonwealth. In effect, it makes the producers pay for any government input, whether they want it or not and regardless of whether or not the government laboratories are efficient, requiring that testing go through laboratories, thus making its laboratories pay, as one producer said. Prior to the present charges, which came into effect on 1 January 1983, no charges for DPI inspectors were implemented. This is an attempt by this Government to try to recover from the industry half a million dollars. Of course it is our policy that the total cost for DPI inspectors will be met by the Commonwealth. Under the present system, testing from the independant laboratory is for manufacturers' own use to monitor this product's progress, to ensure DPI requirements are met and that State quality levels are also met; this usually being a test for salmonella and, depending on where the product is to be exported, the specific requirement of that country. Currently in dairy factories there are no resident DPI inspectors. Products such as butter and cheese are put into cold storage and prior to being exported samples are prepared by the firm themselves or by individual autonomous laboratories. DPI then tests these on the basis of, first, taste, second, smell and, third, sight. The product is then placed on a four tiered grading level. Charges for this grading will now, under the new proposal, become separate, an additional charge on top of the inspection fee. DPI samples for the Australian Government, where the individual analyst tests the same percentage of sample as the Government laboratory. However, results from the Department are usually received after the goods are exported. Hence it acts more as an auditor than as an analysis of approval or even back up to independent firms. The entire concept of inspection is to be completely changed. Under the proposed legislation the DPI will receive one sample, that being in the form that the product is exported-a bag, box or crate for each days manufacturing- indiscriminate as to the quantity produced per day, hence the sample for a firm which produces six boxes a day or half a box a day. These are then randomly chosen and tested. So not every batch will be analysed. It is then up to the company to pay for this analysis. It is in effect random sampling of selected bags. Ground rules for the new inspection procedures have yet to be fully established. Therefore the proposed charging is perhaps not only premature but also based on incorrect assumptions. Hence, I have placed amendments before the House which will amend this Bill until such time as the new proposed procedures are finalised. The egg industry differs from the dairy industry in that it relies less on export earnings for survival; so much so that exports incur a loss to the industry, and it is hoped the future national export level will drop to 3 per cent. For every dozen eggs we do not export the price on the local market is reduced. Hence it is in all interests that we reduce the level of surpluses. Currently, each Egg Board floor has a permanent resident DPI inspector regardless of the percentage of eggs exported. Under the new proposed arrangements the board will now contact the DPI when it is packing eggs or egg products for exports. According to the industry, adequate consultation and research has been undertaken; hence the proposed new inspection methods will be efficient and they have the full support of industry members. The Opposition's policy concerning the egg industry is consistent with its policy on the dairy industry, where it will meet the entire costs of export inspection charges. The purpose of the Egg Export Legislation Repeal Bill 1984 is to repeal the Egg Export Control Act 1947 and the Egg Export Charges Act 1947, effectively abolishing the Australian Egg Board, as it was the Egg Export Control Act 1947 which provided the legislative basis for the establishment and functioning of the Board. The Australian Egg Board, initiated by the Government and commencing operations on 1 January 1948, grew out of a drive for a more orderly marketing of export surpluses, and the need to provide safeguards for contracts between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth following the termination of control under war-time national security egg industry regulation. In practice, the Australian Egg Board sets the terms and conditions of exports while the State egg boards, under export licences, carry out the physical packing and handling of eggs and egg products for export. It became clear that not only was the existence of surpluses incurring a loss; the administrative operations of the boards have been costing a substantial sum of money. Financing a board whose function is becoming obsolete is unjustifiable . Undoubtedly it is more beneficial not to export, yet morally little else can be done with the surplus. Offers to various governments to give these eggs away have been refused on the grounds that these countries desire help in the form of cash, medical supplies and capital equipment, not food, nor is it expedient to subsidise producers not to produce. The cost of exporting was met by the producers. It became evident that more responsible action was needed to co- ordinate the activities of State egg production, so in 1965 the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia, now the Australian Egg Marketing Council, was formed. Until then, interstate egg marketing was controlled by the State marketing boards. Eventually the egg industry was obliged to develop a method to safeguard domestic pricing from illegal and interstate competition. In the same year a scheme has developed which provided for losses incurred from surplus egg sales to be shared equally by all producers. The legislation imposes a levy on commercial laying hens. The funds from the hen levy are essential for research in the industry, particularly into the areas of disease, nutrition, management, market research and development of new products using eggs. Once the surplus has declined substantially, the levy will no longer be necessary to subsidise the losses. However, industry sources desire that the levy not be phased out completely but only in part, as some level of research is essential for a continuation of a progressive industry. Hence, to ensure the maintenance of these funds, the framework or the levy must be kept in place. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Finally, I wish to place on record the sheer disgust of the industry-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Drummond —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.32) —We are discussing a range of export charge Bills relating to meat, dairy products and eggs. The Opposition has moved a couple of vacillating amendments. It is easy to see that it has lost its strong leaders- leaders such as the late Sir Robert Menzies and Sir Charles Court. After only 20 months out of office, following seven and a half years in office, the Opposition is talking about how we should be saving $12m by more efficient meat inspection procedures. Opposition members have accused us of an anti-rural bias. This Government, unlike theirs, has been prepared to deregulate the dollar so that exports would be worth more to the producers who send them overseas. They are talking about a Cabinet which has been more forthright and courageous in its support of primary industry than any Cabinet we have had for many, many years. The dairy industry in particular can be confident that in the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) we have someone who is prepared to come out with a program. The Minister appeared before the Australian Dairy Industry Conference , forthrightly declared his view, and agreement was reached. One can look at plans for all primary industries and see that the coalition was too scared to act and that the Hawke Government was prepared to take the hard decisions. If one talks to farmers they will say that the most useful primary industry legislation came from people such as Reg Pollard, Ken Wriedt and John Kerin. These people do not cry over spilt milk, they bail up another cow. This legislation provides for new procedures in on line inspection during manufacturing of milk, which has been replaced with the monitoring of samples of the final product. The physical examination by the export inspection service has now become less necessary, especially where processors are known for good quality control. The legislation means that a large quantity of the relevant prescribed goods will be exported without physical examination. It is a pity that this did not apply to imports. I know that we have to thank a system of over-government, with the States being involved with checking, for the fact that imports particularly of dairy products such as cheeses are not properly checked when they come into this country. However, I am taking that up elsewhere. The Opposition amendments are vacillating and inconsequential. The Bills represent exactly what the honourable member for Darlings Downs (Mr McVeigh) said we were not doing. They reflect the more efficient export practices which are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.38) —I rise to speak on the Meat Export Charge Bill and to support the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in his forthright comments on the Bill and our stand in the coalition. The export inspection services and the meat inspection services generally were originally brought forward to protect from disease people who consume meat. However, the inspection services have become a bureaucracy and are controlling the industry. This situation has arisen particularly in the meat industry. The background in the meat industry is that we have 100,000 people employed, 30,000 of whom are employed in the export works. The meat industry produces $2,300m worth of export income and 50 to 60 per cent of our meat is exported. Over the past five years 40 works have closed and cattle numbers have declined from a peak of 33 million in 1976-77 to the low figure of 22 million in 1983-84. The Industries Assistance Commission report in 1983 indicated that the meat industry was seriously depressed and likely to remain so for some time. During this time of change in the industry the numbers of meat inspectors employed by the meat inspection service make an interesting comparison. In the peak years of 1976-77, 1,616 meat inspectors were employed. In the peak years of 1978-79 there were 1,794 meat inspectors. Although cattle numbers had declined in 1982-83 we still had 1,632 meat inspectors employed. The problems of the meat industry are varied and well known to the members of this House. Producers encounter problems in selling on the overseas market and processors have problems with the availability of livestock. In addition, there has been the impact of the 1967-68 drought and the more recent drought in 1982- 83. The problems of processors in making their plants efficient and in achieving a constant throughput occur each year. Not only does the meat industry face these difficulties, but it has problems with regulations for export, regulations for the home market, and the inspection services the costs of which we are discussing tonight. This is a very labour intensive industry and it is prone to industrial disputes. The year 1980 was a peak year for industrial disputes and the meat industry was significantly disturbed. Turning to the Budget Papers and the figures we are now discussing, it is interesting to observe that the expenditure set out for export meat inspection services is $77.7m and the estimated revenue will be $61.7m. I wonder whether the Minister can assure the House that the $21m included in the revenue figure will be recouped from last year's unpaid charges. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that money will be forthcoming. We now see that the net cost to government will be about $37.7m. There is doubt about the efficiency of the Commonwealth meat inspection service as it now operates. I wish to quote from the Woodward report of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. The report states: . . . I believe administrative arrangements and procedures for supervision of the handling of meat for export have been far from adequate to ensure that such meat has met the requirements prescribed by law. The important sentence stated: I believe that they are now adequate, but could be made more cost-effective and more certain. Mr Hawker —Those are key words. Mr McARTHUR —As the honourable member for Wannon says, that is a key point. There is a comparison between the inspection services at a Federal level and those offered at a State level in Victoria. Industry sources estimate that the cost of the service in Victoria runs at $8.4m. The service inspects something like 85 to 90 per cent of the meat processed in that State. Industry sources estimate that it costs about $13m to render the same Federal inspection service which covers about 10 to 15 per cent of the remaining export products. The Country Abbatoirs and Wholesalers Association of Victoria reports that because of this cost differential the State meat inspectors could inspect and brand the present export kill in the Victorian export works for a cost of $4m. So one can see that on a contractual basis the Victorian inspectors could save the producers and processors $9m. Those are the figures and the observations which are made on the industry. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council has drawn up a table which I believe demonstrates the problem in broad terms. Let us look at the cost of inspection charges for the number of animals processed. In 1979-80, 8.8 million cattle and 30.5 million sheep and lambs were slaughtered. The inspection charge in that year was $31m. In 1983-84 7 million cattle were slaughtered. This was a reduction of 20 per cent. The figure for sheep and lambs went down to 24 million representing a reduction of 21 per cent. However, the interesting point is that inspection charges rose to $79m, an increase of 150 per cent. Mr Hawker —They went up. Mr McARTHUR —The charges went up. Yet the number being inspected was less. Regarding the charges which are before the House, the Minister has put forward a suggestion that there has been a reduction from $5.40 to $4.35, a reduction of 20 per cent. I draw the attention of the House to the true position. In September 1983 a charge of $1.80 applied. In October 1983 the charge was increased to $5.40. Mr McVeigh —A 300 per cent increase. Mr McARTHUR —There was a hike of 200 per cent in charges on that occasion. We now propose a charge of $4.35 which represents a 142 per cent increase on the September 1983 figure. The situation in Queensland is that the proposed export fee of 2.4c a kilogram will add a cost of about $8 to $10 per head. This export levy will be very important in Queensland because that is from where most of the cattle are exported and that is where the increase in charges will be most painful. The increase in Queensland and throughout Australia will be $1.80, up to $10, representing an increase of 500 per cent. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr McARTHUR —Five hundred per cent. The Meat Exporters Federal Council estimates that the increased inspection fees will add $30m to industry costs in a full financial year. The interesting comparison to be drawn is that meat inspection in America, New Zealand and Canada is publicly funded which means that our competitors on the international market will not have to bear this quite excessive charge. It means that they will be able to export their meat into world markets competitively and at much better prices than we can in Australia. Mr McVeigh —So the Government pays for the total cost over that. Mr McARTHUR —That is correct. That is our policy and that is the way we would do it in government. We would give our primary producers a chance to compete on the export market. It is interesting that just this very day the inspectors in Victoria have gone on strike. They could be worried about their jobs. The important thing in Victoria is that although there is a strike the domestic consumers have been able to receive their meat because the Victorian inspectors have continued to work on. Mr Andrew —You mean only the Federal inspectors are on strike? Mr McARTHUR —Only the Federal inspectors in Victoria have gone on strike. I gather there will be further strikes around the nation in the next few days. Can the Minister assure the Australian meat producers, the taxpayers and the processors whether any inspectors are working at processing plants which are no longer operative or inspectors who are surplus to requirements? Hopefully the Minister can assure the House that there are no inspectors who are surplus to requirements and are not working in plants that are not in operation. It is a sad situation for the meat industry that, in a 6-week period from 9 August, five works have closed throughout Australia. Five thousand workers have been put off. Industry people suggest that the increase in inspection charges has been a contributing factor in the closure of these works. The interim Inspection Policy Council, which was appointed by the Government to look into these matters, has made two strong recommendations to the Government. Apparently the Government has seen fit to not take up these recommendations. The Council, in its report in April 1984 recommended: . . . in the short term there is a compelling case for assistance to be given to the industry through a reduction in the export inspection charge. In fact, the Government has increased the charge to the industry. The Council recommended further, in line with the difficulties the industry is facing and the closure of abbatoirs, that: . . . a moratorium be declared on the export component for 2 years because of the State of the industry, the need for trade incentives and the fact that efficiency measures and charges must be phased in. I conclude by asking: Are we propping up yesterday's men in yesterday's practices or are we putting in place the most cost effective meat inspection service for both domestic and export consumption that will take us into tomorrow 's world? Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.48) —In speaking to the Meat Export Charge Bill and the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill this evening and after listening to the honourable member for Corangamite, Mr McArthur, the first point that needs to be made in this debate is that we are talking about a measure designed to collect 50 per cent of export charge expenses, a policy which was introduced by the previous Government, the so-called friend of the graziers. Back in 1978 the Fraser Government decided that all rural industries should pay 50 per cent of the cost of export charges. This policy was further enforced by the famous razor gang, headed by Peter Nixon, the Minister at the time, who set out quite clearly to this House that export charges should be set at the rate of at least 50 per cent for those who are benefiting from the industry. Tonight members of the Opposition, who were members of the Government at the time this policy was introduced, appear to be trying to tell us that the policy of collecting 50 per cent of export charges was a fallacy. It is a policy that they introduced and one from which they now seem to be wanting to back away. There is no reason why there should not be some charge on export inspection for any industry. To try to blame export charges for the calamity that is occurring in the meat export industry is a complete fallacy. We know that the fortunes of the meat export industry go up and down. Over many years export meatworks have closed and reopened. In fact, this country was governed for 30-odd years by a government which oversaw this type of operation. It was very strange that honourable members from the Western District of Victoria, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), whose predecessor, as Prime Minister of this country, oversaw the policy of introducing 50 per cent export charges, should stand up tonight and try to tell us that there is something wrong with that very policy. This policy has to be implemented. Circumstances in the meat industry at present are such that there will be closures of meatworks simply because of the world market situation. It is wrong to try to blame such closures on export charges. They are a small sector of the cost structure of that industry. They are not the total sector. If export charges were at a minimum we would still have a complete closure of many meatworks simply because the stock is not available and the market is not available. So honourable members opposite ought to be honest in relation to that matter. I wish to direct my remarks tonight not so much to the meat industry, as has been the case until now, but to the dairy industry and to the egg industry, which are also vital industries to Australia. The dairy industry in my electorate of McMillan is a vital industry for my electorate and for the people who work in that industry. I refer not just to the farming sector but to the factories in every town in my electorate. Hundreds of workers are reliant on the dairy industry. A situation has developed in Australia wherein, once again because we have overproduction and an export market which does not pay, we have to ask ourselves what do we do with that industry. Do we allow the free enterprise market structure to operate? If we followed the philosophy of free enterprise of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia , we would do absolutely nothing. If their philosophy were allowed to operate we would have a massive collapse right across the board in the industry until things got back to a market supply and demand situation. We clearly know that, while that is an alternative, it is not the priority alternative for any industry. We have to take into consideration that it will affect the jobs of people in factories and on farms. We have to consider the economy of the towns in the dairy areas. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I, of course, am always very broad-minded but I draw your attention to the fact that these Bills are about the collection of inspection fees. They have nothing to do with philosophy. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep a very close look out to make sure that the honourable member talks to the Bills. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is relating it back to the economic conditions in his area. Mr CUNNINGHAM —In any industry involved in export charges one must look at the complete industry. As the debate has gone on tonight members of the Opposition have tried to tell us that the cost of exports has a definite input in the actual industry. So what I am saying is definitely related to what we are talking about, and I am talking about the dairy industry and export charges. While they are a very minor point in regard to the total economics of the dairy industry, tonight I would like to look at the industry as a whole and at some of its problems. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur, who will be following me in this debate, also has a very deep interest in the dairy industry . I put to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the dairy industry employs thousands of people. The first thing every member of every family in Australia sees in the morning after he has cleaned his teeth properly is the milk in his bowl of Wheeties. It is an industry which affects everybody in Australia. Here we have an industry which has developed in Australia on an export basis for many years. We used to export thousands of tonnes of dairy products to the United Kingdom before it joined the European Economic Community. Since 1970, thanks to the lack of support by members of the former Country Party, we have had the situation where, just across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand is still exporting to the EEC and Australia is on the outer. So we had to try to find markets which were not as lucrative. Because of that we have had to cut back the industry in Australia. It has been cut back to the point now where Victoria and Tasmania are major producers of exports and New South Wales-my colleague from New South Wales, the honourable member for Macarthur, will speak later in this debate-is vitally interested in what will happen. We have two industries in one. One sector of the industry produces milk for the morning breakfast table under contract with the State governments. Another sector of the industry produces the same product which is converted to our butter and cheese and sold on the world market. Because the world market has collapsed, we have to ask ourselves what we should do at present when those who cannot get a decent price for their products see a market opportunity in sending milk from Victoria to Sydney and want to do something about it. It is quite clear that in this case the Government has responsibilities and must take a serious look at this problem. I noticed in the speech of the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), that he did not even mention this most vital subject. This is a most vital subject for those in thousands of jobs, for thousands of producers and for the consumers of Australia. The shadow Minister skipped over it in about two minutes and did not even bother to give its importance a look in. Right now we have a clash between an industry which is producing for exports and one which is producing for the local market. The Government has to face up to the responsibility of deciding what will happen to the whole industry should it cut itself back to the point-- Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order. In all fairness the matter of quotas for an industry has nothing whatsoever to do with an inspection service. I ask that the honourable member contain his remarks to the Bills, as my colleagues have done. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for McMillan will be relevant to the Bills for the remainder of his remarks. Mr Kerin —I seek your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. There have been other Bills in this-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I recognise that other speakers have been roaming far and wide. I have given the honourable member for McMillan a fair amount of latitude. I suggest that for the few minutes remaining to him he make his remarks relevant to the Bills. We have seven Bills before us. With the indulgence of the Chair, previous speakers have moved outside the relevance of each of the seven Bills and so has the honourable member for McMillan. I suggest that he now get back to the Bills. Future speakers might also like to look at the fact that they may have a little indulgence but they may not roam forever. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It has become quite obvious from the debate tonight that there is no member on the Opposition side who understands the dairy industry at the moment. After the next election there will be no Opposition member here who understands the dairy industry at all, because the Opposition does not want to hear what is possibly one of the most important debates to have taken place on primary industry. It is important for thousands of people who have jobs in that industry and for thousands of consumers. In view of the objections we are receiving from the Opposition, I move on by saying that at present negotiations relating to the dairy industry are in a very delicate stage. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is negotiating with State Ministers to try to agree on a proposition which will create the climate in which thousands of people can maintain their jobs. People will be able to stay on the farms and will be able once again to pay that export charge which this legislation seeks to cover. If we do not come up with a policy which is for the benefit of the whole industry, we will finish up without an export industry in dairy products. This will adversely affect the Australian economy. We need exports. We can maintain those exports but it will not be done by the Opposition 's laissez-faire, private enterprise, free enterprise, supply and demand type policies. It will be done simply by negotiation between the Federal Minister and the State Ministers. I believe that this Minister at the table knows more about the dairy industry than anybody sitting on the Opposition side. I move on to the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill, the Eggs ( Export Inspection Charge) Collection Amendment Bill and the Egg Export Legislation Repeal Bill. A number of decisions of far-reaching effect to the Australian egg industry have been made by the Government. These were announced in a media release in Townsville on 2 August by the Minister at the table. They were that the Australian Egg Board, which was involved in export marketing, was to be abolished and that the Commonwealth hen levy, which was used to equalise losses, was to be phased out on 1 July 1987. Also, sections of the Trade Practices Act which provide exemptions for arrangements between egg marketing authorities on pricing for interstate trade and for restrictive interstate trade are to be repealed. Over the period since August it has been suggested in various quarters that all the decisions announced by the Government came as a complete surprise to the industry. However, this was not the case as a number of these decisions followed recommendations made to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Australian Egg Marketing Council. Since that time, in addition to the decisions announced, the Australian Egg Marketing Council has been invited by the Department of Primary Industry to meet the Department to discuss research, the phasing out of the Commonwealth levy and other matters affecting the industry. I am sure that under this Government and under this Minister we can look forward to rational policies and communication between State and Federal Ministers. It will take a little time but we have to turn around many years of neglect, many years of past governments taking the decision that spending a few bob here and a few bob there would keep the cockies happy. Those days are gone. We are in the real business world now. We are competing in world markets and we have to be fair dinkum. I am sure that these sorts of Bills that have been brought forward by the Minister, and the ones that will continue to be presented by this Government, will be in the long term for the betterment of rural Australia and of jobs in rural Australia. That is a very important point that we never hear a word about from the Opposition benches. We always hear about the farmers but we never hear a thing about the factory jobs involved-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about the abattoir workers? Mr CUNNINGHAM —The honourable member for Maranoa interjects: 'What about the abattoir jobs?' I point to the number of years when honourable members on that side of the House had charge of the export industries. They allowed them to get to a situation where now it would take an absolute genius to overcome those problems in 18 months. The people of Australia will re-elect this Government on 1 December and over the next four years we will be able to reinstate those jobs which have been lost because of the policies over the seven years prior to our taking government. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.04) —It has been interesting to listen to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) and to realise that, of course, the prime part of the honourable member's constituency is in fact the dairy industry. He sided with a Government which has completely abrogated its responsibilities to these industries and particularly that part of the dairy industry which is still involved in the meat industry. We all know that we cannot run a dairy industry without also being involved in the meat industry. We know very well what a disastrous blow has been struck against the meat industry by this Government's recent move with these meat inspection charges. It was interesting to hear the honourable member. He even bothered to tell us that we are in the real business world. But what else did he tell us? He told us of some fancy deal whereby he will encourage his constituents, who happen to be the most efficient milk producers in Australia, not to go into the New South Wales market where they could make a quid-where they could make money. He will talk them out of that, with the aid of this Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who thought he could also talk the wheat industry out of what was its right, and deny the Australian economy $3,000m. He did not even understand what his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was on about. The Prime Minister needed that $3, 000m so he could go to the electorate and claim that his Treasurer (Mr Keating) is one of the best Treasurers. Of course, this Treasurer has gained his reputation by rain and bountiful seasons. But let us look at some of the other things that the honourable member for McMillan bothered to tell us. He said that Victoria might survive if it could still be an exporter. It can export to other States-- Mr Cunningham —Of course it can. Mr TUCKEY —But the Government will not let it. The Government will have a fancy deal whereby there are switches of money and slings. The poor old taxpayer will have to pay up while the honourable member's constituents, the people he represents here, are denied the opportunity of competing in the market. Mr McVeigh —I will send you down in the election campaign against him. You will clean him up. Mr TUCKEY —It would be a good idea to let those people know how their man represents them in this place. The first responsibility of any member of parliament is to the people who place their trust in him. No trust should be given to this person. Let us look at some of the problems confronting the meat industry, particularly the export charges that have been put upon them. It is not long ago that the honourable member for McMillan, in his opening remarks, told us that 50 per cent of shared costs was an idea of our Government when we were in power under Malcolm Fraser. Mr McVeigh —Not our policy. Mr TUCKEY —I say to our shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs, that it was basically a policy that 50 per cent of the costs be borne. But it was not 50 per cent of $77m. That is the difference. This Government has let this thing run wild. It has been unable to administer it. It has taken control of the Government. The other day this Minister went out to slap the meat inspectors on the wrists and tell them that maybe they should reduce their numbers a bit. Of course, he rushed into New South Wales and picked up an extra 300 staff when he did not need any of them. He went out there to rationalise the situation. He told the poor old consumer in New South Wales: 'We will give you a single charge'. Instead he picked up an extra 300 meat inspectors and put them on higher wages and better conditions than they had had before. Who will pay for that? The honourable member for McMillan says that we have to consider the consumers. He represents consumers and producers but does not seem interested in either of them. But $77.7m is what this Government will spend on inspecting meat. It is disgraceful. The Government has been unable to come to grips with the main problem. As I said, it set out to slap the meat inspectors on the wrists. But what is being tolerated this week? There are lightning strikes in every State. Today it is Melbourne. A major exporter told me: 'We are behind on our market deliveries because of the seasonal conditions and now we cannot load meat today. We cannot sell it on behalf of Australia'. What did the honourable member for McMillan tell us? He told us that we are in the real business world. What a stupid statement. The facts of life are that the Export Inspection Service is destroying the Australian meat industry because this Government has ignored the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. It has looked at the whole situation and has failed to come to grips with any part of it. What is more, I can tell honourable members that security is not very good. The situation is that in many meat works where dual export and local meat are produced, they lock up the export meat but fail to lock up the local meat. If someone can sneak a bit of extra meat into the local freezers during the night, out it comes in the morning. If it happens to get accidentally mixed up in the export meat, that will be a profit for someone. Of course, if the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) were here at the moment he would well remember his dealings on behalf of the Richmond City Council and the Protean meat company. He would know how things work and how they are done. He is an expert. But there are problems associated with the meat industry. The huge burden-- Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was an insinuation against the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. There was absolutely no ground for what the honourable member for O'Connor said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair did not perceive it as a reflection. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for O' Connor. Mr TUCKEY —At times the sensitivity of the Government is remarkable. Of course, the honourable member for McMillan was a member of this Parliament in the days when his Party was in opposition, and it is amazing how the sensitivity of honourable members opposite can rise. I just wish that on occasions he had called for the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) to relax a little and not try to annihilate people like John Reid with unfounded accusations. Mr Cunningham —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The matter involving the honourable member for Fremantle and Mr Reid has nothing to do with this debate and I think that the honourable member should clearly get back to somewhere close to what he is supposed to be debating. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has made his point of order. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to maintain relevance to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I agree entirely with your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker; it was only in response to the interjection and those references that I digressed in that manner. There are huge problems for the meat industry. I was advised just recently, again by exporting people, that the European Economic Community in the last few weeks has made further inroads into our Pacific and Indian Ocean markets and, to quote the exporter with whom I was discussing this matter, into areas that we considered absolutely the preserve of Australia. Those markets are being reduced. In his words, the reason is that we are no longer able to compete . We are well aware, as the Minister will tell us, of the European Economic Community's subsidy practices. The Community is prepared to subsidise and, although I do not stand here as a supporter of that action either within Australia or anywhere else, I do say that government has a responsibility, even if it chooses to levy some charge against the producers of this country for the provision of the export service, to see that it is as inexpensive as possible. The Minister has heard me on this before, but each time I come into this place to speak on this subject I am obliged to bring up the Northam Shire Council. The Northam Shire Council, in my electorate, services the Lindley Valley abattoir and the Tip Top meatworks. They are not small works; in fact, when the Northam Shire Council was supporting only the Tip Top meatworks, it employed eight meat inspectors. So it was a reasonably large works. Under State Government legislation it is obliged to recoup not 50 per cent of the cost of meat inspection services but 100 per cent of the cost. Today, when we are debating this new and iniquitous legislation, the charge is $3.60 per bullock. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr TUCKEY —An amount of $3.60, all sizes in. I admit that that is being done for local inspection and other demands are placed on the export system. If that charge were doubled-it would not be; it might go up by 50 per cent to roughly $5 -for 100 per cent recovery, there would have to be some questions about the capabilities of this wonderful Federal Government operation! The Minister has assured us that there will be a charge, aimed at recovering 50 per cent, of $4. 35. What a myth that $4.35 is. That is all right for a bobby calf or something like that. The method behind this new system, which has never been used before, is that the bigger the bullock, the more one pays. The rate of charge in the legislation is 4.8c per kilogram, while only 2.4c per kilogram is applied at present. When these meat inspectors have finished their little round of lightning strikes, it will probably be encumbent on the Minister to come in here to tell us that he has granted them something that Cliff Dolan told him to. Just as he told the Government how to fix up the Budget this year, he will tell it how to do this. The Minister will then tell the producers the amount has to be that 4.8c. In the north-west of Western Australia and areas of Queensland which are the great exporting areas-the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has told us that we are not big exporters in the corn-fed beef sector; our prime export area has always been large aged beef going out for the hamburger trade and the like-we are not talking about bobby calves and baby beef of 180 kilograms; we are talking about the steer of 500 kilograms as he walks into the slaughter yard. If the abattoir is efficient and takes out its 65 per cent of meat on which this 2.4c per kilogram will be paid, the abattoir will have 325 kilograms of meat and at that 2.4c per kilogram the amount works out to be $7.80. If I read the Minister's legislation properly, he still adds what I would term the fixed charge of $2.55 to that. He can correct me if I have misread his legislation but that is the way it works out to me. The producer sending that bullock into the market is not paying the Minister's so-called $4. 35 which the Minister says is the same as it used to be; he is paying $10.35. Mr Hawker —What is the Minister going to say to that? Mr TUCKEY —What will he say to that? If that still represents 50 per cent, it means that the cost of running this wonderful export inspection service is something like $20.70 per bullock! I am not sure that that is correct; all I know is that it will cost $77.4m this year, of which the Australian producer has to pick up the tab for $40.7m and the poor old Australian taxpayer has to pick up the rest, when the reality is that this Government does not need to carry that burden at all. The fact is that Mr Justice Woodward, in his particularly interesting report of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, went to some length in paragraph 9.5 to say: . . . managements should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on the chain now performed by meat inspectors. The numbers of meat inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average, their work should become more responsible and call for greater experience and higher personal qualities. That is a direct result of the evidence I gave to the Commissioner. The fact is that I said, and the Commissioner agreed, that the Commonwealth should employ very limited numbers of meat inspectors, and those meat inspectors should be highly paid supervisors. They should be there to ensure fair play on behalf of the importing countries. The supervisor could see that the job was done properly . The Government could well and truly afford that small cost and in fact make the service freely available to the industry. The industry would then definitely be stuck with employing some meat inspectors but of course it would employ them as seasonal and cyclical workers. The Government could do that, and that could reduce almost totally the burden on the taxpayer and the efficiency of the balance of the inspection could be left to the works. They could do it properly. Mr Cunningham —What about milk and eggs for five minutes? Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member has so deserted the dairy farmers of his area that I am astounded that he even wants to raise the word 'dairy' in this place. He has sold them out. It is time the electors of McMillan had that drawn to their attention. I know how the Department of Primary Industry has worked on this issue for years. I argued with a Minister of the Fraser Government that the importing countries did not demand that we employ the actual chain-type meat inspection service and that the responsibility of our Government, under our agreements, is supervision. I had to ask a question in the Parliament to get even our Minister to agree to that. Ministers get brainwashed; that is the problem. I eventually asked the Minister on 25 March 1981: Is there any evidence that the countries importing meat from Australia demand that the Federal Government must pay the wages of meat inspectors? The Minister was absent from the Parliament that day so the question was fielded by the Prime Minister. The Minister eventually replied on 3 April, and the answer to the question was no. I put it to the House that this Minister could not answer honestly in any other fashion. It is not the best when we have to agree that our Minister did not do it, but this is the Government of the brave new world. We heard the Prime Minister carry on this afternoon. The most interesting thing he said today was that the Government would be against tax avoidance and organised crime. I guess that means no more Dawkins and no more Wran. These are the things that this Government could address if it chose to. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member referred to a Minister as Dawkins and to the Premier of New South Wales as Wran. I think he should refer to them by their correct titles. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The honourable member has a point. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to be more cautious in his address. Mr TUCKEY —I will certainly be more specific. I will say no more Minister for Finance and no more Premier of New South Wales. I thank the honourable member for McMillan for the opportunity to repeat it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor again offends. There is an implicit reflection in his amended remarks. I ask him to proceed with the Bill and reframe his remarks. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you request me to withdraw, I certainly do so. The Australian industry and the Australian people are confronted with no Government determination to address the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that the inspection services are too costly. They are costly for many reasons. Quite clearly, the Government will not do anything about that. It tolerates strikes which are a further blow to the industry and which quite fly in the face of the efforts of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). He has recently come back from Japan, where he told the Japanese that if they bought meat or any other product from Australia his union mates would guarantee delivery. They are not delivering meat today. In fact, they are imposing an intolerable burden on the industry in so many ways. On previous occasions I have drawn to the attention of the House the huge costs of travel for meat inspectors. I made this comparison: Eight meat inspectors working for the Northam Shire could commute from the metropolitan area to provincial areas at a cost of $7,000 a year; when the Feds moved in the price jumped to $45,000 a year. This absolute waste is one reason why it is so wrong to have a government department employing meat inspectors. I have said before that the industry is seasonal and cyclical. While that situation exists, it is incumbent on the Government to go to the core of the problem and not just shelve its burdens on to the producers, who are presently suffering from the market situation and suffering even more because these burdens are pushing them out of the competitive area. I condemn the Government for introducing the legislation at this time. It says that there is never a good time to impose additional taxes, but this happens to be one of the worst times. The Minister is not even keeping up his reputation of Mr Nice Guy. After all, we know it is he who goes out to do the public relations . It is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Senator Walsh and a few of the others who put in the hatchet. Country people and the producing industry are very much opposed to these moves. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(9.23) —I am pleased to speak in this cognate debate and will confine my remarks to the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill and the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Amendment Bill. The dairy industry in my electorate is looking forward to 1 December, as indeed I am. I challenge the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to repeat in my electorate his remarks about interstate milk. No one wants a milk war, least of all the farmers, because it will benefit no one. The one group of people who will lose out in a milk war are those in the dairy industry, regardless of the State. I will have great delight in circulating the speech the honourable member for O'Connor gave this evening to all the dairy producers, not only in my electorate but also in my new electorate, which will be Throsby, and in the electorates of Eden-Monaro and Gilmore. If the Opposition ever had any thought of getting a seat there it can forget it because it will not get any votes there when the dairy farmers see that the honourable member for O'Connor has been advocating an open milk war. We have captured the dairy vote in Macarthur; because of the speech of the honourable member for O'Connor we will also capture the dairy vote in the electorates of Gilmore and Eden- Monaro. My electorate of Macarthur-soon to be Throsby-includes the dairying areas of Illawarra, Shoalhaven and the southern tablelands of New South Wales. While not considered a totally rural electorate, rural industry and dairying in particular provide much direct employment and support many communities within it. Figures for 1983-84 show that income to dairymen from sales of milk and milk products produced by dairymen in Macarthur totalled $33m. The industry in my electorate employs some 900 persons on farms, approximately 180 dairy factory operatives, and 90 vendors, most of whom have committed their lives to the industry. The purpose of the dairy products Bills is to streamline the system. The establishments and goods prescribed under export orders will be categorised on the basis of product out-turn and inspection intensity, varied accordingly. The new inspection procedures will replace on line inspection during manufacture with a monitoring system involving sampling of the final product. One effect of these new inspection practices will be that a large quantity of the relevant prescribed goods will be exported without physical examination by the Export Inspection Service being necessary. In particular, this will apply to goods produced at registered establishments with a record of good quality control performance. The maintenance of good quality control by the registered establishments will be ensured through spot checks at will. It does not mean that a product will never be inspected or cannot be inspected. I think this is very important to ensure the good name of our export dairy products. Another effect of the new practices will be that the inspection effort should decrease as the new system is progressively developed. It is expected that this will be reflected in reduced costs for the inspection service. In summary, it is proposed to introduce substantial changes to export inspection that are designed to make better use of resources more closely attuned to industry needs. These new procedures have been developed in close association with the industries concerned. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, always moves in close consultation with the industry. He does not often go off at a tangent. Anything he does in his portfolio is always done in close consultation with the industry. That is why he has such a high degree of respect in the industry and from the people on the land throughout Australia. It is important to note that the Bills do not change the levels of charges. The Government is not introducing a new charge, or increasing charges. In fact, in the long term it will reduce charges. It will permit reliable producers to reap the benefits of the new inspection practices, which recognise that a lower level of inspection is appropriate to these places. These Bills will not affect producers in my electorate, as the dairy export industry is based mainly in Victoria, but I am most concerned that Australia have a rational dairy industry. More particularly, I have this concern because I was brought up on a dairy farm. The alternative to this rational industry is a milk war which can have only disastrous consequences for the industry in the short and long term and for consumers in the long term. It is confidently predicted that if a milk war is allowed to develop, 40 per cent of dairymen will go out of business, regardless of which State they come from. If a milk war develops we will see milk producers going out of business in all States. Who will make up this 40 per cent? Those farmers most heavily into borrowing with fixed repayment commitments will feel the pinch. The reduction process will have no respect for State borders. The biggest worry is that those dairymen falling by the wayside will largely be in the younger age group, those on whom the future of the industry depends. I do not believe that we as a Parliament can allow this to happen. I reiterate that it is important, I believe, to note that the Bills do not change the level of charges, in case the Opposition thinks that they do. The Government is not introducing a new charge or increasing charges. As I said before, in the long term it will reduce charges. It will permit reliable producers to reap the benefits of the new inspection practices which recognise that a lower level of inspection is appropriate to those approved places. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.30) —It is my pleasure tonight to support the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Meat Export Charge Bill. Unfortunately, it is a second best option because we do not want these new taxes to be introduced at all. This amendment asks for their deferral for at least two years. Of course, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has never picked up the fact that this is what the industry wanted. He set up an inquiry to look into this problem and it recommended that the new charges be deferred for two years. When he received the report, like all good Ministers he put it in a pigeon hole and forgot about it. The industry was told that it had to cop the increased charges. So there has not been any deferral. We ask that the Minister again look at this problem. The beef industry in Australia faces a tremendous problem now, particularly in regard to the number of unemployed in that industry. The Hawke Government is keen on boasting about the number of new jobs it has created. If General Motors-Holden's Ltd or the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd were in the same position as the beef industry and the abattoirs industry in Australia, the Government would be running cap in hand to help them. A total of 30,000 people are employed in the industry. Ten thousand of those workers are out of work. There are abattoirs in my electorate, such as Wallangarra, where a whole works has been closed down. Up to 30 works have been closed down. Mr Cunningham —When did that close? Mr IAN CAMERON —Two or three years ago. Mr Cunningham —Who was in government then? Mr IAN CAMERON —We may have been. We will be in government after 1 December, too . Government members can bet that they will not be in government then. We will be prepared to fix up the industry at that time. There is no way in the world that the present Government will be returned to office. I would also like to pick up some of the comments made by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis). I cannot understand how he can allow the beef industry to operate under the free-- Mr Hollis —I did not mention the beef industry. Mr IAN CAMERON —I thought that a milking cow had a bit of meat on it. I happen to be a cow cocky. I have pulled a few teats in my time. I thought that a dairy cow had a bit of meat on it. After it has been lovingly milked for 10 years, it is fattened up and sent to the works. But Government members think that the milk producers of this country ought to have some sort of crazy government setup whereby quotas are introduced. Yet the beef industry is one of the few industries that still operate under the private enterprise open system. There are no quotas or setups for beef. Beef can be traded interstate throughout Australia. The Victorian Government has tried in the last few days to set up easy trade between the States. The Wran Government, the Bjelke-Petersen Government and the Victorian Government are all to blame because they all have ridiculous State taxes and quotas whereby we cannot even trade among ourselves these days. That is how stupid it is. Only last week in regard to the grain industry the Minister reintroduced permits so that we can trade a bit of feed wheat. We were in the position where we could not even trade any wheat from our farms. We could not sell a grain of wheat from our farms unless we got permission from some government agency. I tell the Government that farmers in Australia are sick to death of it. Many dairy farmers also will not support the introduction of the milk quotas. I do not agree with it, although some of my colleagues get a bit upset about it. I think that we have seen enough government interference in industry. This is what the inspection charge is all about. The Commonwealth bureaucrats now employed in the inspection service cost the beef industry $90m a year. It is costing $20m a year just to run the division. It is costing twice the amount of the Department of Primary Industry. Members on this side of the House have pointed out very adequately the amount of money involved as far as the beef producers are concerned. As we know, the Minister offered a charge of $5.40 and that figure was reduced. The industry would not accept that charge, so he came back with a new charge, a flat rate of $4.35 on all cattle slaughtered, plus 2.5c on every beast that was hung for export. As the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) pointed out, that can amount to a lot of money. Some of the bullocks that come out of Maranoa weigh 1,000 lb dressed. Mr McVeigh —They are big bullocks. Mr IAN CAMERON —They are big bullocks. Maranoa provides good fattening paddocks. Some of the Channel Country bullocks weigh at least 1,000 lbs dressed. The Minister has set a price that will cost about $14 just for the export fee plus $ 4.35, so he is looking at $18 to $20 a head. A decent Channel Country, Maranoa bullock will cost $20 a head to inspect. I think that that is an absolute disgrace. All of these charges are passed back to the producer. In the long run the producer pays. Half of the amount is not paid by government. It is passed back to the producer and he must pay. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) is a damn good shadow Minister. He has announced our policy-that is, that we will pay for all the charges. I believe that that is the way it should be. It should be paid out of Consolidated Revenue. How can we compete against these other countries? How can we compete against the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand? Why should not inspection charges, such as health inspection charges, be paid out of the public purse? Why should the beef producer pay it? It is no longer his product. The beast is sold at auction, yet this charge is passed back to him through a reduction in the price that the industry offers to him. Why should he bear that cost? Of course, the Minister has absolutely no support on this issue. A High Court action has been brought against him. Mr McVeigh —Who, the Minister? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Cattlemen's Union, the Council of Australian Public Abattoir Authorities, and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia are opposed. Mr Robert Brown —He has the people on side. Mr IAN CAMERON —He does not have the people on side. That is nonsense. We will find out on 1 December just how many people he has on side. I tell Government members that there will not be a farmer in the country who will vote for Bob Hawke; no way. I do not believe that there should be an inspection service, but unfortunately this bureaucracy has been set up since we started selling beef to America. I believe it is high time that the Department and the Minister went to the American importers and asked them why we have to have this very expensive inspection service. It is a damn sight better than anything that is operating in the countries to which we are selling meat. Mr Hollis —They will sell kangaroos and goats as well. Mr IAN CAMERON —With regard to kangaroos, where is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen)? Mr McVeigh —He has gone out; he is not interested. Mr IAN CAMERON —I thought he was in charge of the House. The meat industry employs over 100,000 people. There are 30,000 people directly employed in the abattoirs in this country. The Australian Labor Party could not give a damn about them. Workers have been shifting out of abattoirs by the hundreds every week. The inspection service, of course, employs 180 people. The Minister knows that there are 180 meat inspectors sitting around Australia on full pay. That is costing the taxpayers of this country $6m a year. Mr Robert Brown —You appointed them. Mr IAN CAMERON —Maybe we did, but what is wrong with the Government? Why cannot it get rid of some of them? Why can it not rationalise the industry? Our exports have decreased. We have heard that cattle numbers have dropped from 34 million to 22 million. Numbers in the cattle industry have dropped by half. Why can it not rationalise a bit? Mr Kerin —Shooting or poisoning? Mr IAN CAMERON —Shoot them. Do anything to get rid of them. They must be thinned out a bit. What is wrong with that? The beef producer has to do that. How does he cope with this problem? He has to cut down on his staff. He has to cut down on his capital expenditure. What about the dairy farmer and the fellow who produces eggs? He has to cut down on his chooks. He cannot keep hundreds of employees hanging around. Of course, Mr Kevin Bartell, the Chairman of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, stated publicly that the Government has been bad in all of the negotiations that he had with the industry. Of course , none of the producers is on the Minister's side in this regard. I only hope that the Australian Democrats, the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party will block these Bills when they get to the Senate. I hope that they will throw them out. We should go to an election showing how tough the Government is on this industry. No responsible person in the meat industry today is not opposed to what the Labor Government intends to do in this legislation. Inspection fees will cost the industry an extra $30m. Inspection fees are up from $31m in 1979- 80 to $90m. If we add up the amount of money spent on salaries and the administration of this service we will find that it now costs the industry overall $90m. The taxpayer is paying for half and the industry is paying the rest. The taxpayer is paying indirectly as it is coming from Consolidated Revenue. Overall the total cost is $90m. I mentioned previously that 40 works are down. The Wallangarra works has closed . I would just like to put in a plug for one meat works which has actually opened in the last few months in Roma in my electorate. That works was able to be opened because of the contribution of the meat workers, such as the knifers. They put in some money to buy shares in the works and have got this works going. I congratulate the management, the unions and the people who work in this works at Roma. Let us hope that they keep the works going. I only hope that they can get enough cattle to do so. One of the biggest problems at the moment is that cattle numbers are down. Works are finding it very difficult to keep throughput up, costs down and make a profit. Of course, many big properties in the Maranoa electorate supply beef. As I mentioned, the Channel Country produces 800lb to 1, 000lb bullocks. The big properties there, such as Tanbar, Nappa Merry, Cameron Downs and Nockatunga, are the backbone of this country and supply thousands of head of export cattle. Queensland is the biggest export State, supplying over 50 per cent of the total exports of this nation. Of course, it is not easy for exporters to survive. I might just mention to the Minister the enormous costs of the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication program. This program is now being undertaken by the bigger cattle stations and they are having tremendous problems in getting rid of these diseases. I believe that governments ought to be looking again at the help they can give these people to try finally to clean up these diseases. Wild cattle have been shot out at great expense in the western part of my electorate. Work is now being undertaken at great expense to clean up the problem in the Gulf country. Private owners up there are having great difficulty in surviving. I recently undertook a trip into Asia. I would like to mention the fact that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is very lax in signing the new meat agreement with Japan. I believe it is high time that the Labor Government signed the agreement. I just wonder how much longer it wants to negotiate and procrastinate. I was told two months ago in Japan that the agreement was just about to be signed. We still have not signed it. We still do not know where we stand with the Japanese. I think it is a disgrace that this has gone on for so long. As I have said previously in the House, I believe we need to be looking at new markets in Asia. We have great competition there from the South American countries as they can now export meat to these places. Previously the Asian countries did not take meat from foot and mouth disease countries. Their governments have now allowed them to do this. We just cannot compete with the price that is being offered by them because of the fact that the inspection charge is being paid by those countries and because the workers in most of these countries are paid a lower wage than is paid in Australia. It is impossible for us to compete with many of these countries in the Asian market. I also believe that a very good market is opening up in China. I think that we ought to be doing more in this respect. I have spoken about this with Dick Austin, the new Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I hope the Minister follows up the fact that New Zealand and America are selling meat to Peking and we are doing nothing. Australian beef is not being delivered to these places and I think it is high time it was. In closing, I would like to mention that I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the environment and all things beautiful has left the chamber. I wanted to mention to him that the kangaroos and wallabies in the Maranoa electorate are getting thicker than ever. There has been a strong call for more tags to be issued for kangaroos. Kangaroos eat out a tremendous amount of the beef and dairy pasture in my electorate. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not in the chamber at the moment as I was hoping that he would look at this problem. Mr Cunningham —What about milk and eggs? Mr IAN CAMERON —I have a number of large hatcheries in my electorate and their owners are being asked to pay an increased inspection charge. It seems to me that these days one can do nothing without some bureaucrat being involved and some inspection charge being imposed. It does not matter where one goes or what one does, there is someone there to check, double check and check again. It does not matter where one's product is going. Eggs, dairy products and beef all have to be handled in this manner. I support the amendment, which states that this Government be called upon to delay the introduction of these excessive charges for at least two years. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.46) —This evening I wish to direct my remarks specifically to two pieces of legislation in this cognate debate, namely, the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Amendment Bill 1984 and the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984. In doing so, however, I note that the other pieces of legislation in this cognate debate relate to export charge increases in relation to the meat and egg industries. I express the same concern as the distinguished honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) as well as my other colleagues in the Opposition have expressed about the ever increasing spiral of export inspection charges as they apply to our agricultural exports. We express this concern because it is becoming increasingly obvious that our agricultural products are being marketed in an international trade environment in which products from other nations are heavily subsidised and receive all sorts of export incentives, yet, we expect our primary producers, whom I and I am sure the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) regard as the most efficient and economical in the world, to deal on an unfair basis. I stress that Australian farmers are prepared to sell their products on the international market any time of the day so to speak so long as it is on a fair basis. For that reason, I oppose the legislation before the House, believing that it adds to the already heavy cost burden on the primary producers of Australia. It is certainly the Opposition's policy that all export inspection charges be done away with and the Commonwealth, by necessity, has to pick up the tab for that. This would certainly be a very wise investment by the Commonwealth in the future of our agricultural exports. Who in this chamber and outside this chamber can deny the importance of agricultural exports to the Australian economy? I do not for a moment, despite my heavy criticism of the Minister for introducing this legislation, believe that he would adhere to the view that Australia's agricultural exports are not an integral and very important component of Australia's economy. Dairy products in particular have to compete with the unfair subsidies of other nations, particularly those of the European Economic Community and, in many instances, New Zealand. For that reason, to add increased export inspection charges to dairy products or to alter export inspection charges that could very well lead to an increase in the cost of dairy products further hinders the Australian dairy industry. We know that the Australian industry is suffering from ever increasing cheese imports from the EEC, not to mention imports of other dairy products from New Zealand, such as skim milk powder and ice cream. I might say, in passing, that the increase in the tonnage of sheep meat imported into Australia from New Zealand is of obvious concern to the Opposition. As with the imports of EEC cheese and New Zealand dairy products, we do not believe that the Minister has acted vigorously or quickly enough to stem the tide. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware, as all honourable members of this House would be aware, that the former Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. Peter Nixon, set up a very efficient countervailing duty system that the Minister at the table, if he had the will, the energy or the interest, could certainly have used to prevent the dumping of EEC and New Zealand dairy products in Australia. Quite simply, it is my belief, and the belief of Gippsland dairy farmers, that the European Economic Community put it over the Government, not to put too fine a point on it, in negotiations last year, and it is necessary for the Minister at the table to renegotiate the arrangement he had last year with the European Economic Community. There are many problems facing the Victorian dairy industry, particularly the Gippsland dairy industry, and none more so than cheap subsidised imports from the EEC and New Zealand as well as the importation of New Zealand heifers. As the Minister would be aware, I and other honourable members have made representations to him; yet we are reassured by the Minister that the importation level is not particularly high and, moreover, that the New Zealand heifers are of a high breeding quality. I find that logic very difficult to comprehend given the depressed state of the Gippsland dairy industry. There is no point whatsoever in importing cheap New Zealand heifers of very doubtful breeding quality. It makes sense that New Zealand will not send its best breeding heifers to Australia and the increase in the number of heifers can only lead to an increase in production, and that is a concern to all of us. I believe that the Australian dairy industry also suffers from a failure of the Minister and the Government to promote our products vigorously in the Third World where I believe lies our greatest opportunity for expanding our export markets. This is particularly necessary given the recent devaluation in New Zealand which will make its exports somewhat cheaper and allow it to move into Third World markets. Again I call on the Minister more obviously or more vigorously to represent the interests of dairy farmers. It goes without saying that the Victorian dairy industry is in a depressed state and that a number of dairy farmers in Gippsland and in other parts of Victoria face the prospect of bankruptcy if government assistance and government restructuring in the industry is not forthcoming. The Minister dragged his heels over the last 12 months when it was first pointed out to him that we were reaching a crisis stage. He has failed to take the necessary action to institute a restructuring that will benefit Gippsland dairy farmers. Concern for the dairy industry is shared by townsfolk in many Gippsland towns such as Yarram, Foster, Toora, Leongatha, Korumburra and Thorpdale and a number of areas such as Poowong North, because these areas depend on the dairy industry for their livelihood. Their future well-being is intertwined with that of dairy farmers. Of course, if there is a downturn in the income of dairy farmers these towns will suffer. I notice that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) has a grin on his face as if these are not matters of tremendous concern to a great many Gippslanders. Let me remind the honourable member for McMillan that unless assistance is forthcoming from the Government in the very near future-if it is not already too late-a number of small businessmen and people involved in the service industries in these towns in my electorate of Gippsland, as I am sure is the case in his electorate of McMillan, will be severely disadvantaged. Gippsland dairy farmers do not wish for a breakdown in the domestic dairy price structure. It is high time that the dairy industry in Australia was regarded a national dairy industry, as are all other agricultural industries. The Gippsland dairy farmers are a part of the largest and most efficient dairy industry-the Victorian industry-which wants to maintain a domestic price structure. After all , all farmers will suffer if there is a breakdown in this domestic price structure, but farmers in other areas of Australia are not as efficient as the Gippsland dairy farmers due to climatic and geographical differences. Government members interjecting- Mr McGAURAN —Government members are delving into the realms of the ridiculous if they think there are any more efficient dairy farmers than Gippslanders. They are surrendering the interests of their own constituents, not to mention the interests of Gippsland dairy farmers, if they pretend otherwise. Mr Deputy Speaker, despite the fact that Gippsland dairy farmers are the most efficient in Australia, they receive only approximately half the incomes received by dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland. This is a system which discriminates actively against Victorian dairy farmers. There must be a recognition by dairy farmers in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia that there is a problem in Victoria because the Victorians mostly export their milk products and there must further be a recognition of the need for a national dairy industry. I see no logic at all in a government which stands idly by and witnesses the Victorian dairy industry suffering tremendous economic losses. I realise that the Minister has a number of constitutional, and perhaps even political, problems associated with the necessary introduction of a national dairy industry . Nonetheless, he is the Minister responsible. We have looked to him for several months-firstly, for a protection of the industry against cheap subsidised imports; and, secondly, for a recognition that there must be a national dairy industry. I am sure from my conversations with the Minister and his staff he acknowledges the latter. But I do not for a moment give him credit for moving firmly and quickly enough to ensure that Victorian-and Gippsland-dairy farmers do not continue to be severely disadvantaged under the present industry arrangements. I call upon the Minister to act swiftly, and with some compassion I hope, to alleviate these problems. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.59) —The Notice Paper refers to some seven Bills which are the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). They are the Meat Export Charge Bill, the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill, the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill and other associated Bills. I believe that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) should be present in the House tonight because this is not a matter relating to the Minister for Primary Industry; this is a matter relating to the Hawke Labor Government's tax policy, because in fact these export inspection charges are export taxes which are adversely affecting the international competitiveness of Australia's major export industries, namely , the rural industries. I believe, as do all my colleagues in the National Party, that meat inspection charges should not be met by the industry. Meat inspection is a public health issue and its charges should be met out of Consolidated Revenue. It is an inspection which is provided for the general benefit of consumers, whether they be domestic consumers or export consumers. On that basis there is a justification for Consolidated Revenue meeting the cost of inspection for domestic consumption of beef and other meat and there is no justification for imposing what amounts to an export tax on the export of Australian meat. In recent years there has been a notable conflict developing between members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and members of the Meat Inspectors Union. In recent years we have seen declining employment for members of the AMIEU in the meat industry but we have not seen a comparable decline in employment for meat inspectors throughout Australia. In fact, other speakers here tonight have mentioned that there are some 180 meat inspectors on the payroll in Australia at present who are not actively employed. I wonder how the retrenched members of the AMIEU feel about this job protection and guaranteed income policy which is implemented and perpetuated by this Federal Government because it does not have the courage to reduce staff numbers as the industry goes into a decline. What about the large number of retrenched slaughtermen in the beef industry? What about the sheep slaughtermen who have been laid off in recent years despite the efforts of former governments to keep them in employment? This Government is perpetuating the payment to meat inspectors to sit around and, I presume, do nothing because the Minister has not provided any explanation as to what they are employed in. This raises the question of the cost efficiency of meat inspection. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council called a crisis meeting some months ago to discuss the impact of the Government's proposed inspection charges on the industry. In the paper that was presented by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council there is a section which addresses the cost efficiency of meat inspection in Australia. Basically this section highlights the fall in slaughter numbers and the escalating charge for meat inspection. In 1979-80 some 8.8 million cattle and calves and some 30.5 million sheep and lambs were killed. The total cost of meat inspection was $31m. In 1983-84 the cattle and calf kill had dropped to 7 million, a decline of some 20 per cent, and the sheep and lamb kill had dropped to 24 million, a decline of 21 per cent. But what happened to the cost of meat inspection? It is now $79m. I ask honourable members to remember that the cost in 1979-80 was $31m. For the benefit of the three Government members sitting on that side of the House-- Mr McGauran —How many? Mr BLUNT —There are three Government members and the Minister at the table. That increase in meat inspection charges is 150 per cent. The slaughter figures have declined by 20 per cent and 21 per cent respectively for cattle and sheep, but the cost of meat inspection has gone up 150 per cent. How can the Government possibly come to the House and introduce legislation which will increase the cost of meat inspection even further? Is it not aware of the plight of the Australian meat export industry? Is it not aware of the competitive pressures on us? Is it not aware that the New Zealand Government recently devalued the dollar ? Is it not aware that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has failed in his responsibilities on behalf of Australian meat exporters to negotiate successfully with Japan to ensure that our share of the Japanese market continues? I believe that this Government is trying to convert the Australian meat industry into a domestic industry where there is gross over-supply so that the price of beef and other meat can be depressed artificially because we are no longer competitive on the international market. Then this Government can go to the people in the election and say: 'We have reduced the price of beef'. But in the process it will also reduce the Australian meat producer to poverty. In the past few years some 10,000 jobs have been lost in the meat industry. The size of the Australian cattle herd has declined from some 30 million to just over 20 million and 40 meat works have closed. What has happened to rationalise the meat inspection service in Australia to take account of this decline in the size of the industry both in absolute and relative terms? How can this Government seriously introduce legislation which will increase the cost of meat inspection and reduce our ability to export? I believe that this action by the Government is ill advised and will have a long term detrimental effect on the future of our industry. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.06) —My name does not appear on the agenda to speak to the Bills concerned, but I would appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on a few of the matters that have been raised. I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). We are so dependent in Australia today on the success of the primary industries and we are striking problems throughout the world, particularly with marketing, the costs at home and the effect of the European Economic Community, which has been mentioned by a lot of honourable members tonight. But we have to appreciate these facts and anything we can do as a parliament to assist the man upon the land should be done now. That is why the honourable member for Darling Downs has moved the amendment to the Meat Export Charge Bill, simply to ask that this levy be kept over for a certain time. I do not think that the primary industries of Australia are opposed to paying some of their share of the cost of inspection for export, but this must be determined on a basis that reflects the prosperity of those industries at this time. The man on the land today has no say whatsoever on the rising costs in the country and these are a paramount factor which concerns him. Naturally he is very concerned, particularly with exports. As the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) mentioned, we all have a great responsibility to promote our product at home. The beef and dairy industries have been doing their best to achieve this over the years. But surely there must be market opportunities throughout the world of which we can take advantage if we look a little further. That is why the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has been somewhat condemned, because we have not taken advantage of a long term meat agreement with the Japanese. Our farmers, including the graziers, are happy if they know that the Government is doing something to get long term agreements wherever it can at a satisfactory price. The important factor is that no matter how the Australian economy is-if we have a recession or anything else-it has been proved over the last 12 months that the only way the economy can return is through prosperity in the primary industries. A certain amount has been said tonight about the dairy industry. I did not intend to speak because I believe the debate has gone a little further than the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill, but I think some honourable members do not realise the situation in the dairy industry in Australia. The industry to date has been a State industry. It is only concerned from a national point of view with underwriting for export markets. Dairy farmers were numerous in years gone by, but their numbers have been cut drastically. They have been forced to reduce their numbers themselves, simply because of the profitability within the industry. The whole structure of dairy farming within Australia today has been based upon Acts brought into being by the State parliaments. I do not blame the farmers of Victoria or Tasmania for being envious of the market milk sales that farmers can make, particularly in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and perhaps South Australia. To understand the industry one has to appreciate that farmers have invested their capital in stock, plant and land. As the honourable member for Gippsland pointed out, the dairy industry in Australia is as efficient, in dealing with our climatic conditions, as any other country in the world. We have kept our costs to reasonable levels. When the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) starts to talk about a national dairy industry-and I think he appreciates this because he and I have talked about it-any changes must be based on the structures that are there now. It is natural that I should rise in the chamber to say that the dairymen in New South Wales, who number 3,000 or more, must receive some protection in a market they have pioneered at great cost over a long period. In any changes that are made the Minister must consider this. It disturbs me at times when we talk of a national dairy industry. I think I am correct in saying that the other States have co-operated with the Minister for Primary Industry over recent times to try to devise a system that will be acceptable to all the farmers throughout Australia. I supported the Dairy Farmers Association in New South Wales when it agreed that a levy of 1.4c to 2c a litre would be paid on all milk produced on the farm as long as entitlements were fixed within a scheme. I was sorry to hear that, when the Australian Agricultural Council met the other day, the Minister for Primary Industry was not able to get general agreement between the States. I point out that it was the Minister of Agriculture in Victoria who would not agree to the scheme. I believe the farmers in the other States were most generous when they offered to contribute as long as certain safeguards were provided. They were prepared to assist a farmer suffering a low return because of the markets around the world. They actually agreed to assist him under certain conditions. All they asked for was a recognition that the markets are supplied for 365 days of the year and an assurance that the income of those dairymen would not be reduced accordingly. The contribution to the levy about which I have spoken, under a national farming scheme, means a payment of between $4,000 and $10,000 a farm in New South Wales. I wanted to make those points quite clear. When we talk about the dairy industry we have to understand how it has grown over the years, the way it has developed, and the investment and the work of the farmer. It must not be affected by any overnight move. I conclude by saying that there are indications that the world markets for dairy products will improve over a period. At last the European Economic Community has taken some positive action to reduce its production. I believe it has been reduced by about 6.9 per cent over a six-month period. That is a sign that the EEC recognises that it is affecting the markets of the world, as it is with the beef industry, the sugar industry and all the other primary industries. Any plans that are being made now from a national point of view I hope will keep in mind and analyse properly the world situation. Perhaps then we will not have to do the things that are being talked about now-pulling down one farmer and building up another. We hope to reach a situation in which all the farmers will be built up, not only because of the domestic market within Australia but also because of the world scene. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.14) —in reply-The Government has allowed a rather wide ranging debate on these cognate Bills. They cover three industries and it is understandable that honourable members should want to focus on those industries rather than on the matters that are technically contained in the Bills. I start off by saying that it has been a night where Opposition members have slammed into the Government and the Export Inspection Service. It is fair enough for them to slam into the Government because it is the Government, of course, that has taken the decision with respect to the 50 per cent export inspection charge recoupment. However, as Minister for Primary Industry I will not tolerate all these cowardly attacks against the officials and the people in the Export Inspection Service. The Opposition has never really sought a briefing, during my term as Minister, of the Export Inspection Service and what is going on, the activity that has been carried out in my Department, and the negotiations with industry, the States and with the union. Mr Meynick, the Chairman of the interim Inspection Policy Council I set up, came to me at the end of the first study I gave him and said that he had the highest regard for the Export Inspection Service. The Opposition has also had a tonne of opportunity to put before the House its reaction to the corporate plan published by the Export Inspection Service which sets out a blueprint for its approach to the industries. The Export Inspection Service is not pinned in time. It is not a religion. It is an organisation that interacts with industries and has a relationship with the industries it is seeking to serve. I took the opportunity not so long ago to make a full statement to the House about this, and again the Opposition was concerned only to score cheap political points rather than put forward constructive views on how it thought the Export Inspection Service could better serve the industries. It is a service organisation and it is doing a very good job. A lot of misinformation was given tonight by members of the Opposition. I was told that the service was costing $90m to the meat industry. It is costing about $75.6m and the industry will pay about $32m this year. With respect to the Export Inspection Service overall, there is a subsidy by the Government, by the taxpayers, of some $44m. It is all very well, when one is not taking any interest in the service itself and what it is doing, simply to promise that one will not charge the industry any more for the export inspection services carried out. Of course, that is the two-card trick again. The National Party of Australia will say that the industry can spend whatever money it wants to and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), will criticise the size of the deficit. So there is always this business of having things both ways. I am not going to open up too much on the politics of it all. The previous Government really did nothing for the beef industry or the abattoir industry. Mr Fraser felt an early election coming on in 1977, when the beef industry was at its lowest. The Government brought in a beef incentive payment scheme, which had to be investigated by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. That was a slap-a- cow-on-the-buttocks scheme. During the life of the previous Government, 32 abattoirs were shut down. Under the present Government, some 89 have shut down. Nothing was done about it then. The Meat Council of Australia used to come to me and say that it was begging the Government to do something and eventually it got an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. The IAC inquiry was pretty precise in looking at a commercial operation, and it was also looking at the overinvestment in the abattoir industry through the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Government took a decision shortly after it came to office. We did not go along with the move by the big operators in the industry to impose a levy because it would have had an adverse effect on the smaller abattoirs. The whole problem is lack of cattle. That, and very little else, is what is shutting down abattoirs. If there was no export charge, would this stop rationalisation? Would it stop rationalisation if Elders bought out F. J. Walker Ltd and decided to close a plant or two? Would that stop because there is no export inspection charge? If we asked the industry whether if there was no export inspection charge, they would gain more markets, their eyes simply glaze and they say: 'We cannot predict that'. Of course they cannot predict it. They are dealing in a commercial environment. They are dealing in the real world. There is no sense in the Opposition bringing up the business of the recovery of 50 per cent as if it is magic or a creation of the Labor Government, which it continually parrots is anti-rural. At the time we came into office, the previous Government had had the 50 per cent charge policy in place for three commodities. It had indulged in all its anti-rural policies. If that is the criteria we intend to use to define what is anti-rural, the previous Government had in place export inspection charge recoupment for three commodities. The rest of its plan was proceeding as the Department and the Export Inspection Service gained an accurate costing of the service itself and were liaising with the States because the States carry out some services. When we brought in the policy-I would have thought that the previous Government would have introduced it if it had continued in office- many allegations were being made by the industry which displayed a lot of ignorance of what was intended and what was being done. So I set up the interim Inspection Policy Council mainly to give the industry a window on the levels of cost, the systems of inspection, the procedures, and where we were heading with the service. So the industry itself had some idea of what it was all about. Of course this helped greatly in hosing down some of the industry's suspicion and the allegations that it was making. This whole question has caused a lot of trouble. We have actually moved to save the industry quite a bit more money. Before I move away from the 50 per cent principle I would like to say that it is not just a public health measure; it is also a trade facilitation measure. The interim Inspection Policy Council said that the 50 per cent level of charging was fair. So let us not bandy all this nonsense around because it is a popular issue on which to run. As a result of the 1983-84 Budget the Government put in place a charge relating to cattle of $5.40 a head. What it did after the Inspection Policy Council brought down its deliberations was put in place by regulation a charge of $4.35. In terms of this Bill we are asking for a split charge as recommended by the interim Inspection Policy Council. That will give a cost per head of cattle of $ 2.55 and a 2.4c a kilogram export component that is the split charge. This measure recoups the 50 per cent. There is no difference in the level of collection. It is simply a different system. The advantage of a split charge is that it stops diversion. In other words, it helps export works because it stops cattle and stock from being diverted from export works to domestic works. That was one of the most important things that we were thinking of. If we look at the cost of getting a beast chopped up into mincemeat, steak, or whatever and on to the table, it costs about $160. For people seriously to suggest that some $3.60 or some $2.55 will be the defining amount of money that dictates whether or not an export abattoir or any other abattoir is financial, they are really having themselves on. If we look at the impact of devaluation over recent months, that has had far greater benefit than the additional impost of the charge. All I am saying is that it is not that it is not a real cost but that some of the allegations being made about its impact are really trying to put the blame for a very basic problem somewhere else. We do not really know where the charge falls, whether it be on producers, consumers or processors, or whether it falls on all three. It just depends on whether the market is rising or falling. What we are doing here tonight is saving the industry $6m. A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the number of meat inspectors who are not working and are being paid. This Bill makes sure that the industry does not pay for people who are not being utilised in the Export Inspection Service. The allegation has been made that I did not put all the recommendations of the interim Inspection Policy Council to the Cabinet. I did not put them in terms of recommendations but all the recommendations in the report were discussed by the Cabinet. The interim Inspection Policy Council has no more status than the Industries Assistance Commission, a Senate committee of inquiry or any other committee which makes a report to the Government. In other words, it is not the Government itself. The reasons why we did not go for a two-year moratorium or retrospectivity are related to the Budget. That is not to say that the interim Inspection Policy Council report was not fully discussed. At the time we discussed it some 84 per cent of the abattoirs were not paying. They were threatening to take me to the High Court of Australia and they wanted a $14m concession. But it was not those arguments that weighed on our minds; it was simply the budgetary considerations plus the fact that the Government had taken the decision that the 50 per cent recoupment was fair, and the interim Inspection Policy Council itself had said that. So this issue was fully considered by Cabinet and it was considered again the other night by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when a delegation came to see him. Honourable members opposite have been saying that this proposal could not have come at a worse time. At present we have a rising market and the herd is rebuilding. So what they are saying is that a better time to put on a charge like this is when there is a falling market and the herd is diminishing. That is the corollary to the argument being put by honourable gentlemen opposite. I will comment on the question of overseas countries' practices. The United States of America does recover the costs incurred in providing an export inspection service when those services exceed the basic services provided for mandatory inspection for domestic consumption because the United States exports something less than 20 per cent of its meat. There are charges in Argentina, Ireland, the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Japan. There are some minor charges in New Zealand and I will not go into that. New Zealand is a competitor. It is heavily dependent on exports of rural products for foreign exchange and the New Zealand Government takes a decision in that regard. We do not know how long that will continue. It is up to the other Government. In regard to the whole question of meat inspectors being on full pay, I have said here and I have said many times that they are public servants and they are on full pay. Mr McVeigh —Sack them. Rationalise. Mr KERIN —It might be all right for the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) to say we should sack them, rationalise, shoot them or whatever. The fact is that it takes up to 12 months to train these people and the meat industry has no hesitation in making a demand on the Government as it did in earlier years, that we instantly provide meat inspectors. When people with a high degree of skill and dedication are being posted out of seasonal works and are required to go to remote locations, it is not as if one can turn such a work force off as if its members are day labourers. They are skilled people. We are arranging transfers where we can. We are giving additional training to people who are not currently engaged in inspections and putting them through various programs. We are trying to get retirements from age 55 onwards and we are being more flexible in our procedures for hiring and trying to negotiate that issue through. One honourable member commented about my statements to the New South Wales Rural Press Club about savings of $12m. I was referring there to practices and procedures which are in train, some of which were touched on in the corporate plan-no one has commented on that tonight-and which we think shall take place over the next two years and will give us those savings. That is what we are working on. The honourable member for Darling Downs really stunned me by talking first of all about the Export Inspection Service. As far as the meat industry was concerned he said it was all right simply to sack people but when it came to the dairy industry he said we could not sack them straight away; we were moving too fast. It really seems to me that it depends on who talks to him last and asks for his advice. That is why the policy of the Opposition is really a wish list. He is saying it is all right to sack meat inspectors but not dairy inspectors. What we are about is trying to maintain food standards and to cater for customer requirements. We are trying to get a system of services and better uniformity. At some stages the Opposition is saying that it does not want inspectors. Sometimes it is saying it does not want monitoring and at other times it is saying we should ignore the requirements. We really have to look at each case industry by industry, but there has to be some principle. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was basically critical because he is opposed to moves to get a national meat inspection service. Other honourable members do not seem to acknowledge the fact that inherently there is cross-subsidisation in all of those matters and if one moves from one level of cross-subsidisation to another, from big works to little works, from seasonal works to full time works, there will be a need to negotiate with industry and the work force itself. In the past when there was not as much of a recoupment, works would make a request for inspection. They were not conscious of savings that were available and still are available in some works. At least the advantage of the 50 per cent recoupment is that the industry itself is involved in the practices. With respect to dairying and eggs, some substantive points were made by some people. I point out that the quality control systems are being trialled and will not be finalised for about three months. However, in tandem with this, we are also looking at how we can work better with the States and give more responsibility to industry for quality grading, of which the honourable member for Darling Downs was critical. But if we do not proceed with the legislation now, it will mean that new inspection procedures will be delayed until the next sitting. That is not just a threat; that is simply information. Dairy inspection will reduce and charges will align with the new inspection practices. The honourable member for O'Connor made substantial allegations in his usual fashion. He said that we did not do much about the recommendations in the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. In fact 48 of the 55 recommendations are in hand or have been acted upon completely. All sorts of sizes of beasts were mentioned in the House tonight. The average beast that goes through export abattoirs is about 130 kilograms boned out. The biggest beast for Queensland and the northern export works-some of these Maranoa bulls-- Mr Ian Cameron —Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have 1,000 lb bullocks in Maranoa. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —They bone out at about 240 kilograms. One honourable member made the calculation of $20. That would give 750 kilograms boned out, which would mean about 1,120 kilograms boned in. I suggest to him that that is a bigger beast than a Maranoa beast. It would be more like a McMillan beast-one of those big rangy Friesians. The honourable member for O'Connor also wanted another system. He does not really understand the real world. If he believes that meat works will do it properly, he has another think coming. He mentioned something about Northam. The Western Australian domestic system is really four systems and is basically carried out by the Department of Health. An allegation was made tonight that costs have blown out. The money cost of inspection has been contained since April 1983. The requirement for export inspectors has reduced from about 1,690 to 1,430. At present we have a surplus of 110, if the Opposition wants the figures. But they are not paid for by the industry. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) made a comment that it was up by 150 per cent. This is due to the Woodward recommendations and the irresponsibility of the previous Government. It is due to the takeover of the New South Wales service and it is due to inflation. Some allegations were made about more substitutions. I simply point out that any allegations should go to the Australian Federal Police. There were allegations about current industrial action, which has been resolved. Mr McGauran —What about the dairying Bills. Mr KERIN —I do not think I have time for that one. To touch quickly on the hen levy, this will continue until June 1987. The current collection of about $20m is primarily for equalisation. There is only about $250,000 per annum for industry contribution to research. The cost of collection is $500,000. So if it is continued for research only, the cost of collection will be double the amount to be collected. Therefore, we are moving to alternative research funding. Finally, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made some comments about cheese imports into this country. Last November the industry made an application for countervailing duty in respect of cheese imports. After much extensive consultation the European Economic Community signed a price undertaking under which it agreed not to disturb the Australian market and to reduce export subsidies by around $800 per tonne. Due to several factors, including the EEC policy of pre-fixing export subsidies, the impact of the price undertaking has not yet shown up fully in import statistics. I will write a letter to the honourable gentleman about that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand as part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hall, SteeleAldred, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M.Andrew, J. N. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M.Burr, M. A. Howard, J. W.Cadman, A. G. Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Donald Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Millar, P. C.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original 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. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.44) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until early 1985 when the proposed changes to export inspection practices for dairy products are introduced'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ian Cameron —I am happy to second the amendment. Dairy Products Legislation Dairy Products Legislation Dairy Products Legislation Dairy Products Legislation Dairy Products Legislation Dairy Products Legislation Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Fisher, P. S.Aldred, K. J. Hall, SteeleAndrew, J. N. Hawker, D. P. M.Blunt, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Braithwaite, R. A. Hodgman, W. M.Burr, M. A. Howard, J. W.Cadman, A. G. Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Donald Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Sinclair, I. McC.Drummond, P. H. Spender, J. M.Edwards, Harry Tuckey, C. W.Fife, W. C. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original 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. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: CANNED FRUITS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 [No. 2]] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 [ No. 2] as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on these four measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.55) —Australian fruit growers are people within our community who not only contribute much to the wealth of out nation, but who are also particularly vulnerable to effects often beyond their control, especially to the international markets. This series of Bills, concerning both the canned fruits and dried vine fruits industries, is fundamentally administrative in nature. Of course, we in the Opposition were extremely disappointed that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in introducing the legislation did not know what he was talking about and faced the supreme ignominy of having to come into the House and admit that and introduce the correct piece of legislation. I just make that comment in passing. It is wrong for a government to try to concertina legislation through this Parliament in the closing stages when we do not have the opportunity of debating matters which are of great importance to rural industry. I think it indicates a haphazard approach to government by the Minister and by the Australian Labor Party, particularly with respect to rural industry, that they cannot even bring in the correct piece of legislation. However, in indicating that the legislation is fundamentally administrative in nature, I am not advocating compliance. Much more has to be done to adequately assist these industries in their bid to help rationalise. Both these industries, although initially appearing similar, are actually very diverse in nature and more particularly in their manner, and methods advised for assistance in rationalisation within the industry. The canned fruit industry is an industry described, according to the Australian Labor Party agricultural policy as '. . . in 1980 saddled with deep rooted, chronic problems'. Prior to the introduction-not by this present anti-rural, anti-people Government-of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation, the industry was experiencing a dramatic increase era without statutory marketing control. The Australian Canned Fruits Corporation was developed to undertake responsibility for regulation, marketing and promotions of canned deciduous fruits both domestically and overseas. Operations for administration and, more importantly, promotions are presently financed by means of a levy on canned fruits. The industry was labouring under tremendous internal bickering, destructive competition and selling in unprofitable markets where returns often only just covered costs of production. The larger the output, the greater the loss. Rationalisation was essential for the industry's survival and, by eliminating these unnecessary additional internal pressures, progressive changes within the industry became possible. The Corporation provided, and is still providing, the stability necessary in the industry for progressive marketing policies to be implemented by providing the foundation on which valid attempts at cutback in production are being achieved. There is little doubt that the massive declines in canned deciduous fruit production can be attributed to the successful operations of the Corporation. Since the commencement of the Corporation, the industry has contracted by more than 33 per cent. Although painful, this was very necessary. In 1979, canned deciduous fruit production output, measured in basic cartons, was 7,500. This was when the Corporation was introduced. By 1982 it was down to 4,083 and by 1983 only slightly more. Against a background of economic recession, the maintenance of sale volumes is regarded as satisfactory and has been achieved essentially by, first, increases in promotional expenditure and, secondly, the decision by the Corporation that, notwithstanding cost increases, prices would not reflect those new costs. Vital to maintaining sales at a satisfactory volume and price are effective promotions and advertising. It is essential to note that, when other grocery products are heavily promoted in virtually every market, canned fruit must compete for its share of consumer spending. It is pleasing to note that the Minister has seen fit to continue the operation of the Corporation for another three years until 1987. We give an undertaking that at that time we will favourably consider a request from the Corporation and the industry to extend the period for another two years. It is regrettable that the Minister has not seen fit to agree to the request of the industry for that extension. I indicate that on our return to government we will favourably consider that request to allow the appropriate readjustments to continue. The Minister has also allowed for the expansion of the Corporation's borrowing powers, permitting it to raise finance by more contemporary financial instruments, and its ability to operate on the futures market for hedging purposes. However, great concern is felt within the industry, as I indicated previously, over the length of this extension. It feels that three years is too short and would prefer, rather, a five-year extension, ensuring that the ongoing rationalisation in the industry can be substantiated until the industry can stand on its own feet, that being in five years, not three. It is the Opposition 's policy to maintain lengthy negotiations and input with the industry, not only to consider short term implications of government action but also long term implications. Turning now to the dried vine fruits amendment proposals, I am pleased to say it is one of the rare opportunities I am afforded as Opposition spokesman to commend this Bill to the House. The proposed amendment will allow the current equalisation scheme to operate more efficiently by minimising interest costs on at least 50 per cent of fruit subject to the levy and by cutting cash flow delays, thus effectively maximising returns to growers. In understanding the importance of equalisation to the dried vines industry, it is necessary to note the industry's unique structure; that is, the homogeneous nature of the product, small land holdings operated by a concentration of some 3,500 farmers, and the excessive dependency on volatile world markets which serves to place individual members of the industry in a very weak bargaining position. This, coupled with the soldier settlement background, promotes a close knit community in which equity of returns for like quality products is essential. Equalisation is an effective machine for bringing relativity between export and domestic markets. Noting the industry's present financial circumstances where growers have for the month of June the lowest ever unpaid equity in fruit proceeds, every effort should be made by government and industry alike to maximise cash flow and returns to growers. The agreed amendment still allows the levy to be paid from sale proceeds. It does, however, ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in the distribution of equalisation payments, recognising that cash flows significantly faster than 105 days in the case of many sales. It is difficult to estimate the effect on cash flow from packeted fruit in changing from 105 days to 45-days packer-agent- packeter. Nevertheless, approximately 50 per cent of fruit subject to the levy is sold in bulk form with an anticipated cash flow period of 30 to 40 days. The 105-day rule was introduced with regard to the worst possible cash flow situation and the need for levy to be paid by packers from proceeds of sales without resource to further borrowing. When the present 105-day amendment was introduced, the industry enjoyed much healthier financial circumstances than it does at present. We are all aware, and cannot deny, that there are many industries in difficult, potentially crippling circumstances, an experience not foreign to many Australian rural producers, especially those in the dried vine industry. Real and effective assistance is necessary, which will take account not only of balance sheets, but also the unquantifiable welfare cost. Although statistically non-measureable, it nevertheless carries a cost. Of particular concern is the pending Industries Assistance Commission report into the dried vine fruits industry. Community effects are difficult to assess, a fact that the industry as well as this humane Opposition are more than aware of; the compassionless Government perhaps not so. We are concerned with people, not with rationalising their welfare. Human tragedy and misery are immeasurable. We cannot rationalise emotions and morale. What account does this Government make for people? None of these social effects can be readily quantified, yet all are a real cost, particularly to those involved. The inability of analysts to measure these effects should not be a reason for failing to recognise them. This Government has a worrying tendency to overlook any social consequences in framing its rural policies. The Government appears to be not only uninformed but also of the very misguided opinion that, because one is a farmer, one is a millionaire. Urban dwellers do not have a monopoly on poverty. It is about time the Hawke Government was not only made aware of this but also began to act on it, particularly in the case of the dried vine fruitgrowers. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(11.05) —I wish to make a few comments in this debate on the canned fruit Bills. I do not claim to have a canned fruit industry in my electorate but I am particularly interested in the canned fruit industry and, for that reason, have decided I would like to take part in this debate. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) would know well-and I think the honourable member for Murray will be taking part in this debate-the industry has gone through a very tough period during the last few years. There has been a very dramatic restructuring of the market demand for its products. There is little doubt that the industry has gained considerably from the implementation of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. Nevertheless, a number of problems have arisen regarding the financial and marketing arrangements of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The purposes of the amendments in these pieces of legislation are to improve the viability and operations of the Corporation and, in the case of the two minor Bills, to remove anomalies that militate against the interests of the canneries and, as a consequence, of course, the growers. The simple amendment included in the Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill corrects anomalies that could certainly arise in the Canned Fruits Levy Act 1979. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a single levy rate will apply to the cannery intake and canning of apricots. With the apricot season beginning in December the current definition of 'season' lacked any relationship to the reality of the canning season for such deciduous fruits. Clause 8 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill now envisages that inclusion of a Part IVA requiring the preparation of a corporate plan and annual operational plans. This requirement is for a period of three years. In other words, it has the quality of a sunset clause. I believe that we can now expect an even more commercially beneficial role for the Corporation. Some time ago my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and I had the good fortune to receive an invitation to visit the Ardmona cannery at Mooroopna in Victoria. Naturally we readily accepted the invitation on behalf of the Caucus primary industry committee and, I might say, on our own behalf as well because, being Victorians, we were very interested in Victorian primary industry. We were both particularly impressed by the very innovative, progressive and businesslike management controlling the company. For some time the canned fruit industry has been suffering from a change in such things as people's eating habits, together with competition in export markets, as mentioned by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). I was impressed by the sound market research and by the preparedness of the company to respond to the need to develop new products and to create new markets for innovatively packaged traditional products. I was particularly impressed by the range of products which use natural fruit without any additional sugar. To give it a plug, the product Rippa, a very fine soft drink made entirely of natural fruit, is certainly deserving of people's attention. As was indicated, this industry has been hit very severely by a number of factors such as the changing tastes and eating habits of people, the labour intensive nature of the industry, the need to change products to overcome unit cost increases and, of course, the tremendous impact of the overseas market problems. It is particularly vulnerable to movement in costs and in market demands as well as in market access. It is also an industry that has to carry the effects of its seasonal factors. The need to finance stocks for up to 12 months makes the industry very vulnerable to upward trends in interest rates. Therefore, it is fortunate that, with the improvement in economic conditions brought about by the sound management policies of the Hawke Labor Government, the industry should benefit from lower interest rates. The decline in traditional export markets and the long established subsidies provided by the European Economic Community have placed further pressure upon the industry. The vagaries of the climate only compound the potential problems of the industry. For instance, it was anticipated that the Australian canned fruits industry would be able to fill the gap caused by the failure of the United States crop in 1984. I would like to read a passage from page 4 of the 1983 annual report of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The report states: At the beginning of 1984 the industry was optimistic about being able to take advantage of a world shortage of canned peaches and fruit cocktail because of crop failures in the U.S.A. However it is regretted that the industry will not be able to take up the advantage of this situation because the crops of peaches in all peach growing areas of Australia were drastically affected by weather conditions and 'brown rot' disease. The expected intake of peaches for canned fruit is now approximately 30,000 tonnes against a budgeted requirement of at least 45,000 tonnes. Factors such as that really make forward planning particularly difficult in such an industry. One of the provisions contained in the amending Bill should assist the individual marketers by providing them with marketing incentives. The ACFC will now be authorised to permit marketers to retain premiums realised on sales that are higher than the minimum prices set by the Corporation and the excess proceeds need not be remitted to the Corporation to be equalised with other proceeds for distribution to canners. It will be of considerable benefit to the marketers that the same provision will apply to non-pool sales as well as pool sales. In both cases this will provide an incentive for marketers. The changes that are envisaged in this legislation are not disruptive to the effective operation of the industry and the Corporation. In fact, they should be quite the contrary. I congratulate the Minister for having consulted with the industry so thoroughly and so closely. Of course, this shows just what a very fine Minister we have in the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). In the main these changes reflect the wishes of the industry and should be beneficial to it. There has been an improvement in the orderly marketing of the industry since the Corporation was developed. This, of course, has resulted in a very strong sense of co-operation. The Government hopes that with the refinement of the legislation, this co-operation might be maintained and strengthened. I take pleasure in commending the legislation to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.13) —We are dealing tonight in a cognate debate with the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2). The dried vine fruit industry legislation proposes to accelerate payments to growers and the canned fruits industry legislation is designed to extend the life of the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) has already given the statistical background to the dilemmas that face both these industries. In supporting the legislation before the House, the Opposition recognises that neither proposal will cost the Commonwealth money and, of course, neither is opposed by the Opposition. It is appropriate that tonight we should deal with these Bills in a cognate debate because they cover industries which, while very different, have very similar problems. They cover industries that are located in similar geographical areas-from the Riverland in South Australia to the Sunraysia and the Golburn Valley in the eastern States. I make no apology for standing tonight in defence of these industries. Too often they are seen as peasant industries when in reality they occupy part of what is the fourth largest primary industry in Australia. It is only as a result of skilful scientific application of primary industry knowledge, such as, for example, selective plant breeding and, as a result, increased production over the last decade, that either of these industries has been able to survive. That is my first point. The second point I want to make is that these industries are quality industries . They survive in Australia because Australia's quarantine regulations are so strict. We consequently produce quality fruit. They survive in Australia because the fruit is grown in veritable Gardens of Eden. They are grown steeped in sunshine. They are grown efficiently by any world standards. Thirdly, the dried vine and canned fruits industries are export orientated. They are not industries which seek support or protection in order to survive in the Australian domestic market. These industries grew to meet an export demand and they generate valuable export dollars. Fourthly, these are industries which face subsidised competition and much of the overseas competition that these industries face is non-tariff barrier competition. The competition receives low interest loans or grants to enable it to occupy export markets that were historically occupied by the Australian crop. Fifthly, these industries face the real threat of imports because as subsidised production occurs overseas so it becomes more and more difficult for the Australian market to be insulated from the reality of subsidised markets overseas. The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) had a great deal to say about why these industries have been in demise. But he failed to touch on the fundamental point that these are industries with long lead times. The dried vine fruit industry and, even more acutely, the canning fruit industry in Australia are facing permanent demise unless growers are encouraged to plant trees. Even with the best will in the world and the best horticultural information we have available to us, it is not possible to put a tree into production under four or five years. Unless we encourage people to stay in the industry we will lose a valuable export earner for Australia. These are labour intensive industries, which, by primary production standards, require relatively low capital to get into. These industries are occupied by our characteristic Aussie battler. They were commenced originally by soldier settlers and in many instances have now been taken over by migrants who have come to us from European countries. It is in defence of these industries and these people, who are prepared to work and commit their families to heavy work schedules, that the Government needs to be acting now. The problem with these Bills is not that there is anything wrong with them but that they do nothing to address the basic problem facing Australia's horticultural and viticultural industries. It is all very well for the honourable member for Ballarat to talk about falling interest rates but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The real problem facing these industries is that we have ceased to be competitive overseas because our wage costs and our on-costs are so exorbitantly high compared with those of our overseas competitors. Mr Robert Brown —Why do you bash the workers all the time? Mr ANDREW —I am not intentionally bashing the workers; I am facing the uncomfortable dilemma that we are being priced out of overseas markets by a government that is at present before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission arguing in favour of an 8.3 per cent increase in wages over and above indexation. It is that sort of action from the Government which will ensure that the industries I represent tonight will face a further demise. It is not the simplicity of low interest rates, as outlined by the honourable member for Ballarat; it is the reality of living beyond our means. These are labour intensive industries. There is work to be done. In Australia today there are unemployed people. These industries need a government which is prepared to be imaginative about the way it gets work done in labour intensive industries and about the way it goes about promoting fundamentally healthy foods designed for a healthy Australia. It is simply not good enough to bring these Bills into the House without further positive steps to support these labour intensive, long lead time industries. I take the liberty of quoting from a Press release by the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry on 12 May 1982. Mr Kerin, talking about the then Federal Government, said: All the Federal Government could think of to help canning fruit growers was an IAC Inquiry . . . Since this Government came to office the assistance that the canning fruit growers have received has been two Industries Assistance Commission inquiries into the dried vine fruit industry, one into the canning industry, and nothing else. Just a little bit of imagination in terms of what could be done for these industries, just a look again at what we could do, for example, in the area of food aid when we are talking about dried vine fruits, would mean that these growers would have an opportunity to believe that there could be a future for the industry. There could therefore be good reason for orchard and vineyard regeneration which, as I have said, will take up to five years. Mr Robert Brown —You fellows had seven years and you did nothing. Mr ANDREW —I remind the interjector that he is currently in government. I conclude by saying that I have sat in this House and heard the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) suggest that because there may be no surpluses in the wine industry the viticulture industry will be out of trouble. The fact that there are no surpluses means nothing at all. Only last weekend I was in my electorate and witnessed frost damage to dried vine blocks-to sultana grape patches-and that very frost damage will ensure that there are no surpluses. That frost damage will do nothing to relieve the acute problems facing dried vine fruit growers. I am pleased that these Bills are before the House, but they do nothing to address the fundamental problems that the growers I represent face every day. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(11.21) —The Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill and cognate Bills represent once again the contempt that the Government has for Australia's rural industries. Five Bills are being rushed through the Parliament tonight. Last week we saw 13 Bills rushed through here before about 1.20 a.m. We are seeing this mad rush by the Government to get to the polls mainly because of the fear it has of the activities of its friends in the New South Wales Government, or because of this Government's taxing policies, or because of the assets test that we know will have a major impact upon the people involved in these horticultural industries, or even perhaps because of the decline that we know will develop in relation to economic activity throughout Australia in 1985. Tonight I wish to speak only to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill, which is supported by the Opposition. As we all know a levy is imposed on dried fruit that is sold on the Australian market. The levy proceeds from each season's crops are then redistributed to producers pro rata according to their total production in that season. The levy is payable by the packer of that fruit . In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said : The Act presently provides that the levy becomes due for payment three months and 14 days after the month in which the leviable fruit ceased to be in the custody of the packers. This time lapse was provided at the request of the industry to provide time for the packer to receive the proceeds of a sale before being required to pay levy on that sale. In particular, it was designed to cover situations where a packer sent fruit to another firm for re-packing. The Australian Dried Fruits Association, on behalf of the industry, has therefore requested this amendment to the due date so that provisions will be aimed at speeding up levy collections and disbursements while still allowing reasonable time for packers to receive sales proceeds before the levy is due. The Dried Fruits Association rightly claims that under the present circumstances there are many instances where packers receive the proceeds of domestic sales well in advance of the due date for the levy payment. The first change that we see in this Bill is one that will provide that the levy is to become due for payment one month and 14 days after the month in which the fruit leaves the packer's custody. This, of course, is to replace the present provision for a delay of three months and 14 days as I have already mentioned. The second change will provide that the dried fruit: Shall be taken to continue to be in the custody of the packer so long as it is in the custody of, or is in transit to, an agent appointed by the packer to sell the dried fruit, or a person to whom the dried fruit is to be sent by the packer for repacking on behalf of that packer. As indicated the proposed amendments will expedite the payment of levies into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the consequent redistribution of equalised moneys to the industry. As can be seen, the changes that are being made are minor and they will be of very little help to an industry that is in crisis. Looking at the actions that have been taken over the past few months, as outlined by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), one gains the impression that rather than assisting any producers in our grape industries the Government is seemingly doing them greater harm. On 13 September I asked the Minister for Primary Industry a question in the Parliament. I asked him whether he agreed that the crisis in the grape industry would be further aggravated by the sales tax that was placed on wine in the last Budget and whether a drop in horticulturalists' income from $290 a week to $153 a week in a two-year period was considered as satisfactory. I also asked the Minister why he had instigated an inquiry into the grape industry before placing this further impost on it. I also referred to the rural adjustment scheme. The Minister's reply indicates the sort of ad hoc measures that have been taken by the present Government in relation to our horticultural industries. He said that he fully stood behind the Government's decision to implement a wine tax. He justified this decision by saying that with or without the tax the industry was in a great mess, and that the inquiry that he had instigated had come about not as a consequence of the wine tax but because of the problems from which the industry was suffering. He also made the unbelievable statement that the wine tax that was introduced in the Budget was a tax not on growers but on consumers. I simply ask the Minister to take account of the reduction in wine intake that was caused as a result of the ill-advised fortified wine tax that was brought in last June, over 12 months ago, and which had to be removed. I believe that the Minister will also find that the implementation of this sales tax on wine will simply also ensure that the overall effect on the grape growing and wine industries is just as destructive. Recent statistics in relation to the grape growing industry show that in the last year the wine grape harvest was estimated at 510,000 tonnes, as compared with 531,000 tonnes in the previous year. The 1983-84 estimate is slightly above the record of 502,000 tonnes of grapes produced in 1979-80. The table grape harvest is estimated at about 31,000 tonnes, after a then record 26,000 tonnes in the previous year. These figures indicated that the total grape harvest could well be about 870,000 to 880,000 tonnes. That will create enormous difficulties for the industry, be they in the dried fruit area or the wine making area. As I have said, none of the measures taken by this Government has been designed in any way to alleviate the great social and economic problems in the industry. I think that we all recognise, particularly those of us who come from the horticultural areas and the regional fruit growing areas, that the effect is not just on the growers; it is on the rural towns, on the great regional centres, and on the total economic viability of whole areas. As the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) would know, it is the people in the Murray Valley, the Sunraysia areas, on both the Victorian and New South Wales side of the river who will be affected by the present crisis in the grape growing regions of Australia . We all know the reasons for the difficulties in the industry. We know the problems that have been caused by the allowance by this Government of cheap imports to come on to the Australian market. We heard the honourable member for Wakefield refer to the problems related to internal costs in Australia and the comparison of wage costs in this country as compared with those of our major competing nations, Greece and Turkey. We know about the costs associated with protection of our machinery manufacturers and of our input costs, such as chemical costs, which affect the viability of our local growers in meeting and competing with those of other nations. What concerns me more is that we have had so many inquiries that have been aimed at the bringing down of reports on and recommendations in respect of this industry, but very little action has been taken and there have been significant delays in any government assistance to it. I believe that the recent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry was a waste of time. It was a waste of resources by both the industry and the Government. The draft report was tabled in this Parliament some time late in February of last year. It has provided nothing to growers and it does not give any of the growers in our grape growing areas any confidence in their future or in the future viability of their industry. I admit that the problems in the industry are not the Government's fault, but it is certainly the Government's fault that we have seen little or no action in the months since the IAC draft report was tabled. What did the Minister say on the tabling of that report which recommended against any provision of short term assistance to the dried vine fruit industry in the 1984 season? The Minister said that after the harvest was over the Government would have a clear indication of the immediate financial situation of growers and he mentioned the possibility at that time that carry on loans might be provided to producers under the rural adjustment scheme, once again, after the harvest had been completed. However, he added that that would very much depend on the evidence available at the time. I put it to him that we have had plenty of evidence that assistance is needed. We are now about to have another vintage, another harvest, in the grape growing areas, and nothing has been done of any consequence to assist those growers who are suffering such difficult economic and social circumstances. The Australian Dried Fruits Association has indicated very clearly to the Government the sort of range of measures that could be undertaken to assist the industry through its difficult time. For instance, it has suggested that the Australian market should be retained for Australian growers against the increasing threat of cheap imports. The ADFA believes that better and more prompt support should be provided through the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Act 1982 and it is particularly disturbing to me that dried sultanas today receive only a 90 per cent underwriting return, while underwriting commodities, such as the wheat industry which we debated in this Parliament last week, receive a 95 per cent underwriting level. The ADFA believes that there is a need for special consideration of welfare aspects for those growers who are in a serious financial situation. It believes there should be greater co-ordination of the adjustment scheme agencies and the Department of Social Security in order to ensure that adequate family support is provided to needy growers. It is also essential, I believe, for the Government to abandon those imposts that it has again placed on the wine industry because of the detrimental effect on the incomes of grape growers and the severe limitations on intake to our wine makers. The adjustment scheme should also be amended to allow the debt reconstruction provision to be made more freely available to our dried vine fruit growers. The ADFA also believes the Government should issue a guarantee for the provision of finance on the basis of undelivered stocks of dried fruit that existed as at January 1984, that all imported dried vine fruits should meet the same quality standards as required by Australian packers and that only existing licensed packers be granted permits to import dried vine fruits into Australia. I accept that long term planning on a regional basis is needed in our horticultural areas. The grape industry's morale needs a boost to break the crisis that presently exists. Governments must recognise that our horticultural industries have high capital involvement and long production times. If these are combined with the high risks of the climate and the unpredictable markets, we see the need for immediate and specific action. Unfortunately today growers are being forced out of the industry without any adequate incentive schemes to ease this exit from their industry. Over recent years we have seen many growers buy into properties at times of high fruit prices but with limited financial advice and less marketing and production information. At the same time, of course, there is the special problem of small, eight-hectare, 20-acre properties which have attracted new growers and large numbers of new settlers into this country who unfortunately have had limited income and little financial capacity to cope with their investment. Nothing, therefore, has been done to assist those industries. As I said, we have had a fortified wine tax which was a failure and had to be withdrawn. We have the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry which has only brought about delays and a tremendous waste of resources. I believe that body has a total lack of understanding. We now have the sales tax. We still have not seen the major impact that that is going to have on the total grape growing areas. The final straw is the election because now nothing will happen until well into March or April when, as I said earlier, we will have had another grape crop, another vintage and another impact of a harvest on the dried fruit industry. We support this Bill but I point out that its impact will be minimal. It will do nothing to assist dried fruit grape growers who at present are involved in a massive struggle and unbelievable hardship. As the honourable member for Wakefield said, this measure does nothing to address these problems. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.37) —There are four Bills in this cognate debate: The Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2]. The matters I wish to touch on are mainly in the canned fruit marketing area. Before I start I thank the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) for his courtesy in allowing me to speak . He is an expert on the canned fruit industry and very few people in Australia know more about it than he. Mr Hunt —You know a lot about it too, Noel. Mr HICKS —Yes, but I bow to the knowledge of the honourable member for Murray and also the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), of course, who is an expert in the dried vine fruits industry. Although I have a great amount of that industry in my electorate I bow to the knowledge of the honourable member for Mallee. Most of the salient points on the canned fruit industry Bills have been covered by previous speakers. I rise to speak because of the importance of the canned fruit industry to the Riverina electorate and particularly to the area of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and to the town of Leeton. Many people in Leeton are employed in the Letona cannery. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech, said that throughout Australia there are 950 orchards and that 2,300 people are in full time employment in that industry with a similar number in seasonal employment. A great number of those people are employed in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. As I said, most matters have been covered but I would like to raise a few. The first is that part of the request following the Industries Assistance Commission report was for an underwriting scheme for growers. Growers were hopeful that this would come about but, of course, it did not eventuate. I make the point that if the Opposition were in government now we would certainly have looked very seriously at that matter and an underwriting scheme would have been implemented. Mr Lloyd —There would have been an underwriting scheme for the canned fruit industry. Mr HICKS —That is right. As the honourable member for Murray says, we certainly would have implemented an underwriting scheme. I remember that when the present Opposition was in government a number of people pressed us to trade with the Russians in canned fruit. It was suggested that we sell them surplus fruit and that we enter into a trade agreement with them. The present Government, which was then in opposition, was mooting this scheme very strongly. Now, of course, when we ask the present Government what has happened to the trade with the Russians in canned fruit all we meet with is embarrassing silence. I am not quite sure what is going on in that area. The legislation provides for two more members with specialist qualifications on the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation. Some people have spoken to me about this matter. I am not quite sure that it is a good thing, particularly if one of those members is the Chairman. In a number of other industries we see this happening. In some areas things do not turn out the way people expect because every industry has its own peculiarities. The canned fruit industry is no exception. One of the few promises regarding the rural economy made prior to the last election that was kept was a promise given in Griffith. Many promises were given -but most of them were broken. As far as wine is concerned, a 10 per cent sales tax was introduced when there was a pledge not to introduce a tax. The subsidies for drought relief were dropped. Something was going to be done regarding the tariffs on orange juice, but nothing was done. The promise that was kept was that concerning a $4.2m loan to the Letona cannery. I must say that this has had an effect on Leeton. I thank the Government for providing that money to the Letona cannery. It has had an uplifting effect in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and in the town of Leeton. We strike a problem there in that the State Government has increased the water charges by 22 per cent. It seems to me that one government is putting money in and another government is taking money out. Overall I think it is not doing the MIA, the Riverina area, much good at all. Mr Lloyd —Did they have a protest meeting about the water charges? Mr HICKS —There was a protest meeting at which 4,000 growers and people concerned in the area attended. They put it on the line to the Government that there was no way they could meet those charges and costs. Mr Lloyd —That is about 4,000 voters in that area. You'll be right. Mr HICKS —That is right. It was not really surprising because the people in that area are very concerned. The whole welfare of the area is at stake. I have spoken with a number of leaders in the industry. They are generally satisfied with these Bills. They are sorry that the statutory marketing arrangements will apply for only three years instead of five years. However, I think they can live with that. We hope the arrangements will be extended in December 1987. One thing that they are worried about is the devaluation of the New Zealand currency and also the competition coming from that area. While speaking of leaders of the industry, I wish to congratulate Mr Sam Catanzariti who is the President of the Australian Canning Fruit Growers Association. Mr Catanzariti has had a great deal to do in times of very difficult circumstances for the industry. He has been a tower of strength to the industry. He has taken part in a great number of discussions with governments of both political persuasions. He has guided the industry through a time of crisis. He has recently announced his retirement. I know that the Parliament and everyone involved with the industry will wish him well. He is still a very young man. I know that he has a number of options open to him and a number of challenges which I am sure he will face for the good of the community. One of the great problems with this industry-it applies to many industries-is the effect of union activity on the product and getting the product to market. I think that everyone in the House will remember the devastating rail strike in New South Wales which had an adverse effect on many industries. While the strike was on the Deputy Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales wrote to the Letona cannery advising it what was going on with the strike and what the State Rail Authority proposed to do about it. I wish to read a letter which was written by the cannery to the State Rail Authority. I think the letter points out one of the major problems that we face in this country. I know that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) mentioned the cost of wages and salaries, inflation and so on which affect the industry. If I read this letter honourable members will see something else that affects the industry which is of major importance. The letter reads: Dear sir, We acknowledge your letter with reference to the current rail strike. We advise that this Authority is being greatly inconvenienced in the following areas- (1) Rail cars of products destined to valued customers are held up in the system and are still undelivered. (2) Export shipments to Japan, United Kingdom and other areas are held up and will miss promotional periods in those countries. Japanese buyers have constantly criticised Australian manufacturers because of the inconsistency of deliveries. This society has spent the last 15 years building up the Letona business in Japan only to see it being damaged because of problems outside of our control. (3) Non receipt of raw materials will affect production in both Letona and Mountain Maid plants. Assistance from the rail authority should be forthcoming to arrange alternate transport when strikes occur at short notice. This would assist in cementing customer relationships. It is impossible to arrange alternative transport at short notice in Leeton. We do not have the same transport resources as the metropolitan area. This society is in the process of costly retail promotion which will be wasted if we cannot move our products to the market place. The continuation of the strike will have a disastrous effect on decentralised industry and will have a dramatic effect on the viability of this society. The society has been assisted by the State Government and now we see this assistance being eroded by the current action. Letona has always supported the State Rail Authority but the continued problem will make it necessary for the society to review its transport policy. That explains to the House exactly the situation as far as union action and trying to get our exports overseas is concerned. I have mentioned Japan. To my knowledge there is no way that the people of Japan would strike if they thought it would have a detrimental effect on their fellow workers and on the economy of the nation. The actions of those unions is in contrast to the actions of unions at the Letona cannery who during the times of crisis practised wage and condition restraint for the good of their fellow workers, for the good of that cannery, for the good of the town of Leeton and, of course, for the good of the nation. These people are to be commended that they chose to take this action of moderation at a time of crisis and enabled the cannery to come through that time so that now it faces a much brighter future. I give full marks to those people. Some worries still confront the industry. As I said before, New Zealand imports is one problem. I hope that these Bills will help to bring stability to the canning fruit industry. I know that every honourable member would wish the canning fruit growers, particularly in the MIA, Victoria and South Australia, a very good season despite some of the vagaries they have to face. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.46) —in reply-I close the debate on these Bills with a few general comments. Honourable members on both sides of the House have generally been supportive. Most of the comments have related to aspects of the two industries under scrutiny and, of course, have gone beyond the Bills themselves because the dried vine fruit industry particularly is in a very serious situation at present. As far as the canned fruit industry is concerned, the Government made $4.1m available to the Letona company. The amendments to the canned fruits legislation will continue the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation but put a bit more expertise on the board. Of course, what it will really do is preserve the gentleman's agreement; in other words, it will keep the gentleman canners honest. What we are saying in respect of three years rather than five years for the continuation of the Corporation is that we have to look at some of the fundamentals and we think that in another three years would be a good time to review the situation again. I apologise to honourable members that I had to depart from the chamber briefly to attend a Cabinet meeting, so I have not picked up all the reports. However, I will look at Hansard and get back to honourable members where there are questions requiring factual information rather than value judgments. I have noticed in some of the notes that my officials have given to me that a few suggestions in a few areas look a bit new, but by and large most of the suggestions from honourable members opposite reflect propositions being put forward by the industry or views being canvassed in those areas where the crops are produced. Flowing through many of the comments from the industry, and I guess from some honourable members opposite, is the continuing problem of imports, particularly in respect of dried fruit. Like most horticultural industries the industry is very highly protectionist and there is a fundamental philosophic problem if we are to be traders on the world market. The dried vine fruits and canned fruits industries are both industries directed towards exports and we have to try to keep a relatively open position in respect of trade. However, where imports are coming into the country, either dumped or as a result of unfair trading advantage taken by other countries, of course we have to act. We are acting particularly in respect of imports of Greek dried fruits at present. The reason we think we will have some success there does not apply so much to the United States of America and Turkey. There are immense stocks of dried vine fruits in the world. The United States is the largest producer. The industry in that country is undergoing very rapid change. I recall a saying by Earl Butz, one of the United States Secretaries of Agriculture, that the best solution for low prices of agricultural products is low prices. Given the proportion that the United States produces we would hope to see some rapid adjustment in that country in relation to dried fruits which may in turn help the industry get some degree of recovery. We are within days of receiving the final Industries Assistance Commission report on the dried vine fruits industry. Quite apart from the matters raised tonight by honourable members, we will be looking to see what carry-on assistance we can give to that industry. My view on some of the IAC reports, although I am not critical of their findings, is that when the recommendations, which are market-based and economic-based, are put against the real world and the need for governments to react to the problems of people and regions and industries, sometimes the reports do not prove to be of particular utility. The reference by this Government to the IAC on the dried vine fruits industry was the first one in the overall review by the IAC. My colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) agreed to the drafting of the reference so that it took into account alternative forms of production in those areas plus the regional impact, and also gave some attention to welfare needs, particularly in the Riverland and Sunraysia. I look forward to receiving the IAC report in the next few days and seeing what the Government will be able to do with it. It is somewhat academic now, but the last Government did have a chance in the late 1970s to do something about the dried vine fruits industry. It proved very difficult to get agreement with the States. I am not being critical only of the Commonwealth Government. It is interesting to see that the industry itself is moving towards some sort of an agreement on the necessity for an entitlements scheme, and we will take that on board as well. As I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be getting back to those members who have made significant contributions and who have asked for factual information. I also noticed a question relating to imports and quality standards. I must say again that if any honourable members here have any influence on State colleagues they should use it. It is becoming more and more important that we get uniform food standards in this country so that we can take some action against foods coming in which do not accord with our food standards. Mr Lloyd —What do the States have to do so you can act in that way? Mr KERIN —Basically, they need to have uniform food standards. Mr Lloyd —Should we implement the model food legislation? Mr KERIN —Yes. From my recollection, the Queensland Government is the only government that has really gone along to any large degree with this proposal. For example, some wine coming into this country-it is not a great deal, but it is enough to cause us worry, certainly now that there is a sales tax on Australian wine-has sugar in it and we have no way of stopping that. Such wine does not accord with our food standards or our labelling requirements, and we need to take some action. Mr Lloyd —Preservatives in cheese would be another. Mr KERIN —As the honourable member for Murray has pointed out, some months ago with respect to the issue of natamycin in cheese there was some buck passing between the Australian and the Victorian governments. I do not think we can tolerate that sort of thing. Either there are additives in cheese or there are not. If we do not accept them in this country we should have uniform standards so we can take that on board. I commend the Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: 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 be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. [COGNATE MOTION: DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS] Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.57) —I move: That the standing orders be amended by adopting the following new standing order: Committee of Members' Interests 28A. (a) A Committee of Members' Interests shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament- (i) to inquire into and report upon the arrangements made for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of a Register of Members' Interests; (ii) to consider any proposals made by Members and others as to the form and content of the Register; (iii) to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests; (iv) to consider what changes to any Code of Conduct adopted by the House are necessary or desirable; (v) to consider what classes of person (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register and declare their interests, and (vi) to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant. (b) The committee shall consist of 7 Members, 4 Members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 Members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip: Provided that, where the Opposition is composed of 2 Parties, the committee shall consist of 4 Members to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and 1 Member to be nominated by either the Leader of the Third Party, the Deputy Leader of the Third Party or the Third Party Whip. (c) The committee shall elect as Chairman of the committee one of the Members nominated either by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip. (d) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records but shall not exercise that power, nor undertake an investigation of the private interests of any person, unless approved by not less than 4 members of the committee other than the Chairman. (e) The committee shall have power to confer with a similar committee of the Senate. (f) The committee shall, as soon as practicable after 31 December in each year, prepare and table in the House a report on its operations during that year and shall also have power to report from time to time. The Government welcomes the report of the Standing Orders Committee in respect of the declaration and registration of private interests of members and supports the recommendations. On 5 October last year the House of Representatives agreed to a motion noting that Ministers had provided public record statements of their private interests, including those of their families of which they were aware, and expressing the opinion that all members should provide similar statements. The resolution called for the establishment of a public register of members' statements, members to provide such statements on an annual basis; amended statements to be provided of alterations if circumstances occur; individual members to declare any relevant interests if they participate in debate in the House or vote in a division; the Standing Orders Committee to report upon what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the resolution; and the desirability of adopting other provisions contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest, the Bowen report. The Standing Orders Committee reported to the House of Representatives on 7 June 1984 on the changes to give effect to the matters agreed on by the resolution of the House. A later report is planned on additional matters relating to aspects of the Bowen report. The Committee considered three alternatives for the implementation of the resolution: First, incorporation in the Standing Orders; secondly, enactment of legislation; or thirdly, adoption of permanent resolutions of the House. The Committee has recommended against the first two alternatives on the basis that members' interests should be more directly identified with the conduct or eligibility of members rather than with matters of procedural order. The legislation would be too inflexible and would remove control from the Parliament to the courts. The Committee recommends the adoption by the House of specific resolutions to set up a committee of members to supervise the requirements for declaration and registration of members' interests. It would be a function of the proposed committee to draw up procedures for and the actual form of declarations to be made by members. The committee of members' interests is to have limited powers of investigation. The Standing Orders Committee has also recommended that the register of members' interests be tabled at the commencement of Parliament and in each subsequent calendar year and that members also be required to declare any relevant interests in proceedings. The Committee has also recommended that the House give further consideration to the requirement for disclosure by members of the interests of their families. The Committee considers that the requirement is too widely drawn as it requires members to disclose details of the interests of family members who may no longer be dependent on them. The Committee is attracted to a restriction to dependent children, perhaps to those under the age of 18 years. The Government notes the recommendations that the House give further consideration to the requirements for disclosure by members of the known interests of their families and would agree with the Committee's view that children who are no longer dependent should not be included. The Government would suggest the adoption of the definition used by Ministers making declarations of interests, that is, spouse, including de facto spouse and dependent children. I would point out that Ministers made statements of pecuniary interests in 1983. The issue now is one for the House to debate. I add that it is a matter of record that for some time there has been public agitation about the interests of members. It probably has some basis in the Constitution which provides that if members have a pecuniary interest it should be disclosed. Certainly the Constitution provides that, if they were to gain an advantage, they could be disqualified. In that sense it applies to all members. Honourable members will recall that the matter attracted much publicity at the time of the resignation of the late Sir Phillip Lynch. A statement was made at the time by the then Prime Minister that he would establish a committee of inquiry. I do not want to delay the House by going back over what he said at the time but it is a matter of record that we have not achieved anything since that date. The Ministers in the present Government have had their statements tabled. Of course, under the previous Government statements were made to the Prime Minister. The issue relates to pecuniary interests in matters that are before the House. Accordingly, it is appropriate that there be some procedure whereby the public is assured that matters discussed in this House in no way benefit any member but , if they do, that the member declare the pecuniary interest he would have as a result of the benefit and, I suggest, abstain from voting. It is for those reasons that the Government is anxious to have this matter finalised. It was first raised in December 1977. Prior to that there was the report of the Riordon Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and subsequent to that the Bowen report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, which indicated that there should be a code of conduct. There can be disagreement as to the actual detailed content of what is required from members but I do not think anybody would resile from the fact that public opinion expects all members to declare their interests. The precedents clearly show that other governments in the world, and in fact other governments in this Federation, have procedures which require members to disclose their interests. Tuesday, 9 October 1984 Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.02 a.m.) -There are two motions before the House and I will address both rather than one specifically although obviously only one is being moved at a time. The Opposition feels quite strongly that it is an absolute farce for this Government to do this tonight when it declared earlier in the day that there is to be an election, with a new Parliament and that in the new Parliament alone will this new standing order apply. The genesis of our concern is that it is ridiculous for this Parliament to be determining terms and conditions of disclosure for those members who are yet to be elected members. None of us are necessarily in a position to determine at this stage what the views and attitudes of the next Parliament might be. We therefore propose, and I will move directly, an amendment that suggests that this motion, and one to succeed it, be withdrawn and be resubmitted for consideration in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I believe that is the proper course in circumstances where the motion designed to change the Standing Orders is to apply only from the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —The right honourable member for New England mentioned at the outset that two motions are to be considered. It may assist the House if we have a cognate debate on the two motions. Is it the wish of the House to have a cognate debate on these two motions? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Separate questions will, of course, be put on the two motions. This procedure should assist the Leader of the National Party. Mr SINCLAIR —My understanding of the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) was that he had spoken to the second motion so I felt there was a common ground in our discussing each of them. From the point of view of the Opposition parties, we are content with and indeed support the application of standing orders Nos 196 and 326 which are already part of the Standing Orders. Each requires disclosure of interest before participating in a debate-there is a constitutional obligation to do so-and a denial of a member's right to sit were he or she to obtain special benefit from any legislation. So there is no dispute about those provisions. The second matter is that we do not in any way resile from the general concept that, for example, a committee of members' interests might be constituted. We believe that it might well consider what changes, if any, are required or whether a code of conduct should be adopted by the House as necessary or desirable. We believe that it could make recommendations. We are not opposed to the constitution of this committee nor to the proposal that the committee select its chairman nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, et cetera . We certainly would be happy for that committee to confer with a similar committee of the Senate and to table an annual report. Equally we would be content in terms of the second motion with the requirement that a member at the beginning of his or her speech in Parliament should identify whether he or she has a particular interest-that is not that much different from the provisions of standing orders 196 and 326-and similarly in a committee, and that as soon as practicable after a division is called a declaration be made in those circumstances by a member proposing to vote in that division. As we all know, there was a Standing Orders Committee report. It has been tabled in this place, as you know, Mr Speaker, as Chairman of that Committee. I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that on page 13 there was a dissenting report to which a number of members of the coalition, including me, signed their names. Our view is significantly as expressed in that report. Our position is quite clear. We support disclosure and the necessity for members of the Parliament to be beyond reproach in any way they act in this Parliament. We believe that there are possible procedures and practices other than those that have been submitted by the Government and we intend to apply that altered form in any Parliament in which we are the Government. It therefore is necessary for us to look at what is now proposed to see the degree to which it is practicable and desirable. As I have said, however, it is my intention to move that neither of these two motions be considered by this Parliament but that they should be considered at the commencement of the next Parliament when it is proper and appropriate for that Parliament to determine those standing orders which are appropriate to it. We all know that a whole horde of sessional orders has been adopted for this Parliament and I have little doubt that the same will apply at the commencement of the next Parliament. It would be more appropriate, on a day when the election has been declared, for the Opposition's amendment to be submitted and for both of the motions to be dealt with at the commencement of the next Parliament. The motions that are now before us have been amended by the Deputy Prime Minister, to take account of one area of our concern; that is, the obligation of members to disclose their spouses' and dependent children's interests. We are now told that they need disclose only those interests of which they are aware. I think it is of interest-I want to come back to it in a moment-that the ministerial declarations seem to contain such unanimous support for the disclosure. We all recall such headlines as 'The spouse that roared' and some comments about the wife of the Minister for Administrative Services. There was the headline 'Ministers shy to declare their interests' and a number of ministerial wives fairly strongly asserted their right to have an independent identity. Without specifically identifying them, I think it is worth drawing the attention of honourable members to section 26 (1) of the Sex Discrimination Act, which states: It is unlawful for a person who performs any function or exercises any power under Commonwealth law or for the purposes of a Commonwealth program, or has any other responsibility for the administration of a Commonwealth law or the conduct of a Commonwealth program, to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person's sex, marital status or pregnancy, in the performance of that function, the exercise of that power or the performance of that responsibility. I believe it is possible to develop an argument that this motion is contrary to that section of the Sex Discrimination Act in that it identifies marital status and the consequences of that marital status to the detriment of a member of this place. I believe it is quite possible, were any action to be taken in accordance with these proposals if they became part of the Standing Orders, that that law which was passed by this Parliament would in fact ensure that that declaration in respect of the spouse at least would have no status. However, it is necessary to look at the meaningfulness of the declarations required. We all remember the forms with which the Ministers so bravely came in, telling us they were baring their souls, and we, being trustworthy souls, took them at their word. We remember full well how it came to be that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and each of his Ministers declared a list of pecuniary interests that were more notable for their omissions than for their revelations. On 22 September last the Ministers lodged their variations. That was only the first of the variations. On that day we had only nine but they revealed a series of either deliberate or perhaps understandable omissions from the Ministers' declarations. The more significant variation to the declarations came following that when a letter written by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to the Prime Minister was tabled in this Parliament. It referred to a report from Touche Ross and Company outlining his interests in and benefits derived from Coomel Pty Ltd in liquidation. Even beyond the Minister for Finance's revelations we had the instance only a few weeks ago of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) apparently having brought into this country goods and having signed Customs forms with dubious valuation, with declarations which in our view have not been completely examined by Mr Black. These things have become a matter for debate in this House, and perhaps placed the Special Minister of State in contravention of the details that the Prime Minister said were part of this declaration of pecuniary interests tabled in the House. So we have two Ministers at least who have significantly varied in the implications of their pecuniary interests matters that have arisen since the returns were presented to this Parliament. Nine Ministers have had to vary their specific returns and in addition to that there have been two cases where matters of benefit to Ministers in one form or another have been disclosed not by the pesentation of those returns but by things that have happened outside those members' declarations. Mr Speaker, it is our concern that the form of this declaration will not prescribe honesty on those who seek to be dishonest. Our worry is not that we do not seek to maintain the confidence of the public in the Parliament and its members but rather that this declaration will in no way achieve that confidence. Indeed, we believe the whole nature of this public register is one that in no way will disclose assets which, in some instances where people seek to be dishonest, will be concealed from public view. We seriously question the wisdom of having any public register. If one looks at the sad decline in the general standard of this society in terms of criminal behaviour, there is little doubt that the disclosure of assets and the location of those assets for those who are perhaps more fortunate than most of us and have some significant assets will place the children at significant risk. Not only the members' assets but also their children's assets will be disclosed. So if it is revealed that dependent children have some significant assets, perhaps quite beyond their own independent determination, we will immediately have a kidnap register which sadly will make available a threat which I believe is not something that can be lightly cast aside. I seriously question the wisdom of that being included at all in any public register. I believe that there is an entirely different position between members of this place and Ministers. In the coalition Government that preceded the Hawke Government there is no doubt that a disclosure that we made to the Prime Minister was significantly greater and more extensive and, I suggest, more honest in its presentation than anything that these Ministers have tabled in the public register. I believe that it is appropriate that Ministers disclose their assets. I do not believe that it should be a public register. I, and honourable members on this side of the House, are not against having some reconsideration of the nature of the register to ensure that there is somebody capable of receiving it perhaps other than the Prime Minister himself. We are opposed to the concept of having members whose interests are distinctly different. This Government fails to realise the difference between the administration and the legislature. In our view, the legislature is not in the same position as the Ministers. Legislators are not in a position directly to benefit from the affairs of the government in the way that Ministers might well be. We see, therefore, a distinctly different responsibility, none of which comes out of this report. Finally, we read that there will be a necessity for an annual report. It is interesting that there has been no report back to this Parliament in the change in status of those who were Ministers. We had no report from the Prime Minister as to whether any of those settlements in the libel claims that we constantly hear him pursuing have been made out of court. Has he received large cash amounts as a result of those settlements? Are they matters which are beyond the interests of this Parliament? If he has received any, they should have been reported to this Parliament, but they have not been so reported . In accordance with those general remarks and because this is a cognate debate, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the motion be withdrawn and re-submitted for consideration in the 34th Parliament'. I will be moving an identical motion with respect to the second motion when it is before this House. Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —Yes. (Quorum formed) Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.18 a.m.) —I have no personal difficulty with this legislation and the request for disclosure of one's assets and interests. I have been in the habit of telling this House and making public statements of where I stand on this matter. Whenever I have entered the debate on matters such as excise, I have always managed to make it clear that, in fact, I am the owner of some hotels. I sometimes wonder about that matter. Am I the representative of the thousand hoteliers within my electorate? Am I the representative of the people who will go to them for drinks? Or am I the representative of my own very small interest by comparison? The real interest to me in all of this is the fact that there are substantial omissions. When we look at the motion and at the farce that was brought to the House on 22 September 1983 to which the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair ) has already referred, we find that this motion has exactly the same requirements as those the Minister submitted at that time. That suggests to me that the report and the inquiry have been ignored completely; the resolution is a copy of the ministerial statement. We already know what it did not say, particularly in regard to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). Having looked at that long list of about 11 different items in the motion, I find some omissions. I find that there is no obligation on a member to declare how much cash he has. I find that there is no obligation for him to declare his rich and powerful friends. Indeed, there is no obligation on him to acquaint the House of circumstances that might lead to outside pressures such as blackmail being put upon him in such a fashion that he might do things in this place that would not be in the public interest. It is quite interesting to consider that when one considers the efforts that I made in this House to get the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to tell us about that cash on which, of course, he is quite safe. He did not bother to declare it in his statement. He did not bother to declare his cash resources because he is not obliged to do so any more than he will be obliged to do so under this new motion . In an article in the National Times of 4 April 1982 we find some very interesting statements that relate to these issues that are overlooked-the business of cash, rich and powerful friends, and the risk of blackmail. In that article a fellow by the name of Gibbs, a Labor member of the Queensland Parliament, is reported to have said: In his telegram sent on March 9 to the secretary of the Caucus, Ros Kelly, Gibbs said that he was lodging 'the strongest of protests at the unwarranted interference by one of your Caucus members, namely R. J. Hawke, on the Queensland casino licence issue. This man was complaining about one R. J. Hawke's support for the application of one Eddie Kornhauser. The article continued: Gibbs said in Queensland Parliament that a 'stench' hung over Kornhauser's application. A Labor Party person said that. The article continued: On March 2, when the State Parliament resumed, Gibbs again attacked Kornhauser alleging that he had laundered illegally collected money. We now get on to the cash issue. The interesting thing about the 2 March date is that it was just over a week after the Prime Minister lost some $5,000 of certain types of cash in the Boulevard Hotel. Mr Keogh —What has that got to do with this motion? Mr TUCKEY —It has plenty to do with the declaration of interests. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that he is straying rather wide from the terms of the motion and that he should return to the motion before the House. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, if this particular motion is carried and becomes part of this place, should you remain in your position in the Chair, you will be confronted with members coming into this House drawing attention to breaches of this motion. Presumably, that would be proper. Surely it is my opportunity to give you an example of what you will be confronted with-complaints, for example, by a Labor member of a State Parliament as to the activities of a member of this House, activities he has not declared in his statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor knows that what he is talking about is not covered by the terms of the motion before the House. I suggest he return to the motion before the House. Mr TUCKEY —The motion written by this Government has nothing to do with cash or with rich and powerful friends. The National Times article quotes one Hawke, in relation to Kornhauser, as saying: 'Yes, he certainly is a good friend of mine, that's right. The question of friendship didn't really have a great deal to do with it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor should return to the motion before the House. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, this is a remarkable situation. I object to your ruling. It is amazing how sensitive people suddenly get about declaration of interest. Let me take you back to the Prime Minister's declaration of interest. He said he has a house in Sandringham for which, according to Blanche d'Alpuget in her book , he paid #17,250 when he was on #2,000 a year. I expect that there is somebody around this place who can work out how much of that income would be left if he was paying that house off even at the 5 per cent interest rate of those days. Mr Holding —What a cheap mug you are! Mr TUCKEY —I am not too worried about cheap mongrels. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs failed to declare his blooming interests with Protean ( Holdings) Ltd and the quids he got out of that. Let us not worry about the Minister. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The statements made by the honourable gentleman are not only untrue but also offensive. I ask that you ask him to withdraw them. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw the offensive remarks. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I will withdraw but I point out to you that the-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will withdraw and will proceed with his speech. Mr TUCKEY —That is exactly what I propose to do. But I hope that the Minister will now deny that he was ever in receipt of a payment as a solicitor. That is not offensive. Those are moneys associated with those matters. Mr Hand —Ask the Liberal Minister about Protean. Mr TUCKEY —No, why should I ask him about that? The Prime Minister did not mention these disclosures. The disclosure of cash is not mentioned, the disclosure of powerful friends is not mentioned and the disclosure of the risk of blackmail is not mentioned. When one looks at the chronological order of this trip to Queensland one finds that it includes a stopover in northern New South Wales. We find all this cash money floating around. We wonder about the risk of blackmail as it might apply to a member of the House. Without these matters what use is this motion? What use is a motion that tells us only half the story? How often will these declarations be upgraded? I have had a look at the declaration of the Minister for Finance. Nobody has sent me an update of that declaration but it has been brought to my attention by an Aboriginal person that his wife now has employment with the Government. I believe that the wife of the Minister for Finance has a job as the assistant to the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference. Is it not proper that he should have advised us all of these changed circumstances? It is not an improper situation that his wife should get a job with the Government. There is nothing wrong with that. But are we to be told about that? Are there to be regular updates? Should the Government practise what it preaches? Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Minister going to tell us that that is not so? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on a point of order. Mr Holding —My point of order is simply this: The statement made by the honourable gentleman is a complete fabrication. Any employee of the NAC is not in the employment of the Government. Mr TUCKEY —Oh, I see, and is- Mr Holding —If you knew what you were were talking about and you were not such a cheap little smearer-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order; it is a statement of fact. Mr TUCKEY —The complaint that I received from this Aboriginal person was to the effect that the matter had to go through the Public Service Board irrespective of who paid the wages. His complaint was that that would cost an Aboriginal family a housing loan. Mr Holding —That did not go through the Public Service Board. Why don't you stop smearing? Why don't you speak the truth? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —Why don't you cut it out? Mr Holding —You are a cheap mug and you know it. Mr TUCKEY —You are a traitor. Mr Holding —You are a cheap mug and you know it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, that man is trying to interrupt my speech because it is hurting him. I add, Mr Speaker, that of course we have a situation where-- Mr Holding —You are the only convicted person in the House. Mr TUCKEY —The only reason you are not convicted is that you told lies. Mr Holding —You should have been in gaol. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister to order. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, if the Minister does not stop interjecting I will ask for extra time. Members opposite are in the habit of granting it in this place; I think they will grant it to me tonight. I turn to the motion regarding the proposed committee of members' interests and point out that the makeup of four Government members and three other members almost guarantees that there will never be a call for a Government member to provide his papers. Even though the chairman is taken from the four Government members the Government is much closer to the opportunity to persecute any members of the Opposition if it so chooses. Quite clearly that is not fair and it should be reconsidered. We still have these problems of the omissions to which I have drawn honourable senators' attention. The sensitivity of the Government ranks is remarkable. I would have thought that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) would by now be jumping to his feet and saying: 'You are quite right. It is essential that the Prime Minister's rich and powerful friends be included'. Only the other day I read in the newspaper-and I have not seen it denied-that the Prime Minister is supporting the claim of Ansett Airlines of Australia to compete overseas against Qantas Airways Ltd. Yet in the Blanche d'Alpuget confessional we read how the Prime Minister is a very close friend of the principal proprietor of Ansett Airlines, one Sir Peter Abeles. That book refers to how he used to get the keys to the Rolls Royce and drive off and how one of the passengers on one occasion was rung up and given a $25,000 loan. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is diverting very far from the subject of the motion. The honourable member should return to the subject of the motion. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, you might suggest to us what we should talk about if we are not allowed to give examples of what has failed already. I refer, of course, to a resolution which is identical to what is proposed in this motion and which referred to statements of Ministers' pecuniary interests to 22 September 1983. If we turn to the first resolution and place numbers against the small letters we will find that they are even in the same order. The only difference, of course, is that we find that the significant ones are missing; the significant ones that would really count if one intends to declare one's interests and how they might affect how one would behave and act in this place. I see that my time is running out. I conclude by saying that questions have been placed on notice about some of the issues that I have raised, particularly matters relating to dealing in foreign currency. They have been ignored. The Minister-noisy Protean over there-voted to the effect that the Minister for Finance was innocent. If that can be achieved, what is the purpose of this rubbish? As I have said, I have no difficulty-I have not had any at any time-in giving people some idea of my personal wealth because I believe it is a recommendation to the people who elect me. I do not have a problem with it. I just want Government members to come clean now and start to get it right. If they want to have this sort of thing, they should do it right and start off with the question of cash. Mr SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.33 a.m.) —The Government will reject the amendment because all it does is ask that this matter be withdrawn and resubmitted in the next Parliament. Mr Sinclair —Precisely. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Let me have a look at it. I make the point again that this matter arose in the 1975 period with the Riordan Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Of course, there was no opportunity to implement that report for reasons that are well known to honourable members opposite. In November 1977 Phillip Lynch had to resign. Following that resignation, then Prime Minister Fraser announced that he was establishing a committee of inquiry, known as the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. Honourable members should note the point that that occurred in 1977. It took a long while, but the Bowen Committee brought down a report in July 1979. Did the Fraser Government do anything about the recommendation of a code of conduct for members? No, it did not, in all of that period. The issue is not a question of whether honourable members have cash . The issue is: What are the honourable member's obligations in this House in relation to the people that he represents? When an honourable member asks questions about matters concerning projects in his electorate, it could be thought that he is trying to get something done that will add to his assets. It is a question of the member's conduct in this House and whether he has a pecuniary interest. They are the words that are used in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders. I am amazed to think that members of the Opposition are so afraid of disclosing to their electors what are their assets. I would like honourable members opposite to listen to the point that was made by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). Let us make it clear that the resolution of the House was passed last October. It has taken from October until now for this matter to be put before the House. I think we have given more than ample time to the Committee which dealt with this matter and on which the Opposition was represented to come to a conclusion. Even when this report was produced to the House, the Opposition again dissented. For the life of me I do not know what members of the Opposition are so afraid of. Why are they not prepared to disclose their assets? The first precedent for this is the recommendation in 1979 of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest that there should be a code of conduct. Those opposite did nothing about it. They were afraid to disclose the position. This motion makes it very clear that it will operate from the Thirty-fourth Parliament. That really negates the amendment. Those opposite are frightened of that as well. Mr Tuckey —We are not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Members opposite are frightened, because that is the purpose of the amendment. Do they think we are the only ones in the world to have thought of this? Do they not realise that every member of parliament in the United Kingdom has to disclose his position? Do they not know that members in the United States have to disclose their position? Do they not know that in the States of this Federation their colleagues have to disclose their position? Why should those opposite be exempt? The Australian States do it. The Northern Territory does it. New South Wales does it. Victoria does it. South Australia does it. Those opposite are afraid to do it. What is wrong with them from the point of view of their electors? What are they so worried about? They have nothing to hide. They are on public notice as to their assets or liabilities and their electors are entitled to judge how they vote in this House because, by asking a question or moving an amendment, they may be trying to seek some personal advantage. That is the point. There is no distinction between Ministers and members because everybody has the same responsibility. Since Lynch's resignation in 1977 we have been trying to get the members of this House to do what has already been done throughout the democratic world, including the majority of the Australian States. Yet those opposite are afraid to do it. I can tell the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) that there has been no alteration in the proposal. On 5 October the motion concerned members disclosing their interests and those of their families of which they were aware. The reason it had to be amended recently was that, due to an error in the Clerk's Office, those words were left out. That had nothing to do with the Government. The original motion was the same. I make that explanation in case it is thought there has been some government decision in this matter. The matter has been fully canvassed for a long period. It is a very simple proposition. It is a proposal that this House on the incoming of the Thirty-fourth Parliament-that is, after the next election -do something about telling the electors what are the assets and liabilities of members. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.38 a.m.) —It is the height of outrageous criminal hypocrisy that this Government in the dying hours of this Parliament is pontificating about declaration of members' interests, including matters as diverse as real estate, shareholdings and any assets valued at over $5,000, when only last year 10 of its Ministers proved to this Parliament and the nation that they could not properly fill in a declaration of their assets as required by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is even worse when one realises that the Prime Minister himself has demonstrated beyond any doubt that he either cannot or will not properly declare even his own assets. The example I place before this Parliament tonight will prove this point for ever and a day. On Sunday, 21 February 1982, the honourable member for Wills, the present Prime Minister of Australia, stayed at the Boulevard Hotel, William Street, East Sydney. He occupied the Lady Nelson suite, suite 2012/13-- Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I fail to see what the honourable member for Wills being at a hotel on a certain night has to do with this motion. It is out of order. My point of order is that this has nothing to do with the motion before the House and ought to be ruled out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is some substance in what the honourable member for Melbourne raises. I am listening carefully and trust that the honourable member for Denison is going to relate his remarks to the motion before the House. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The bells being rung- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Could I raise with honourable members a matter to which I have drawn their attention before. Remarks made during divisions which may be repeated may not be covered by privilege because they are not part of the proceedings of the House. I ask honourable members to take a great deal of care in the statements they make. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Tickner, R. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Andrew, J. N. Groom, R. J.Blunt, C. W. Hall, SteeleBraithwaite, R. A. Hawker, D. P. M.Burr, M. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Hodgman, W. M.Cameron, Donald Howard, J. W.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Ian McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. McGauran, P. J.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. McVeigh, D. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G.G.D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Tickner, R. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Andrew, J. N. Groom, R. J.Blunt, C. W. Hall, SteeleBraithwaite, R. A. Hawker, D. P. M.Burr, M. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Hodgman, W. M.Cameron, Donald Howard, J. W.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Ian McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. McGauran, P. J.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. McVeigh, D. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.50 a.m.) —I move notice No. 2 relating to the registration and declaration of members' interests in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper, save provision (d) which relates to directorships in private companies. I suggest that that be amended to read ' interests in private companies to be determined by the Committee;'. I think that is the best way to put it. Mr SPEAKER —Is there formal wording for this? Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There are representations from the Opposition side about the matter and I think that is the easiest thing to say. Mr Tuckey —The Prime Minister said you're not allowed to make mistakes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not making a mistake; it is as a result of representations from the Opposition side. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the form of words available? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will write it out for you, Mr Speaker. The Clerk advises that I need leave to move the amendment. Mr Sinclair —Leave is granted. Mr SPEAKER —Is it leave to move the amendment or leave to amend the motion as it appears on the Notice Paper? Mr Sinclair —Leave to amend the motion. Mr SPEAKER —Leave has been granted to delete (d) and insert 'interests in private companies to be determined by the Committee;'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I move: That the following resolutions relating to the registration and declaration of Members' interests be adopted, such resolutions to have effect from the commencement of the 34th Parliament and to continue in force unless and until amended or repealed by the House of Representatives in this or a subsequent Parliament: (1) Declaration of Members' interests That within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Member of the House of Representatives and within 28 days after the commencement of the first period of sittings in each subsequent calendar year while remaining a Member of the House of Representatives, each Member shall provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests, a statement of- (1) the Member's registrable interests and (2) the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (a) of the Member's spouse and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, in accordance with resolutions adopted by the House and in a form determined by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time, and shall also notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of that alteration occurring. (2) Registrable interests That the statement of a Member's registrable interests to be provided by a Member shall include the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and shall cover the following matters: (a) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (ii) in which the Member, the Member's spouse, or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (c) real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) interests in companies to be determined by the Committee; (e) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interests, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (f) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (i) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (l) any sponsored travel or hospitality received, and (m) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. (3) Register and Registrar of Members' Interests That- (a) at the commencement of each Parliament, and at other times as necessary, Mr Speaker shall appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members' Interests and that officer shall also be Clerk to the Committee of Members' Interests; (b) the Registrar of Members' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee of Members' Interests, maintain a Register of Members' Interests in a form to be determined by that Committee from time to time; (c) as soon as possible after the commencement of each Parliament and in each subsequent calendar year during the life of that Parliament, the Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests shall table in the House a copy of the completed Register of Members' Interests and shall also table from time to time as required any notification by a Member of alteration of those interests, and (d) the Register of Members' Interests shall be available for inspection by any person under conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time. (4) Declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Member of a statement of the Member's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Members' Interests, a Member shall declare any relevant interest- (a) at the beginning of his or her speech if the Member should participate in debate in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House ( or of the House and the Senate), and (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House (or of the House and the Senate) if the Member proposes to vote in that division, and the declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Votes and Proceedings or Minutes of Proceedings (as applicable) and in any Hansard report of those proceedings or that division: Provided that it shall not be necessary for a Member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information in accordance with standing order 142 or 143. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.55 a.m.) —I move: That the motion be withdrawn and resubmitted for consideration in the Thirty- fourth Parliament. The Lady Nelson suite was to become the scene of one of the most extraordinary, mystifying, bizarre incidents in recent Australian criminal, legal and political history. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is a motion before the House. I suggest that the honourable member for Denison address himself to that. Mr Humphreys —I move that the question be now put. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, come on! Gagging again. Honourable members opposite are scared of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), are they? They are covering up crime and malpractice- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Griffith that that is not the appropriate motion. We have an amendment before the House. Mr HODGMAN —When he checked in at the Boulevard Hotel, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) had with him a briefcase which had been presented to him by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Tickner, R. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Andrew, J. N. Groom, R. J.Blunt, C. W. Hall, SteeleBraithwaite, R. A. Hawker, D. P. M.Burr, M. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Hodgman, W. M.Cameron, Donald Howard, J. W.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Ian McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. McGauran, P. J.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. McVeigh, D. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.02 a.m.) —I second the amendment. I want to observe that the way the Government is behaving tonight makes it appear that there is something about the Boulevard Hotel that members of the Government are trying to hide at all cost. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) agreed to: That the honourable member be not further heard. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller).Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Staples, P. R.Gayler, J. Steedman, A. P.Gear, G. Tickner, R. E.Gorman, R. N. J. Uren, T.Griffiths, A. G. Wells, D. McM.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Andrew, J. N. Groom, R. J.Blunt, C. W. Hall, SteeleBraithwaite, R. A. Hawker, D. P. M.Burr, M. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Cadman, A. G. Hodgman, W. M.Cameron, Donald Howard, J. W.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Ian McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. McGauran, P. J.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. McVeigh, D. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Millar, P. C.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE MESSAGE: JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON VIDEO MATERIAL] Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Young: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes /discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring 'X' classified videotapes/discs to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition 'X' classified material, subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit an 'X' classification are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent , pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 7 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the committee proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (5) That the committee elect a Government Member as its chairman. (6) That the chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when there is no chairman or the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote. (8) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members. (9) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources. (10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (11) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (13) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Minister for Trade) —Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion and order of the day No. 34, Government Business, as they are associated matters. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the two orders of the day to be discussed in this debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Amendments (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Paragraph (1), omit 'report on', substitute 'inquire into and report upon'. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) (f), omit ''X'' classified videotapes/discs', substitute 'videotapes/discs classified above ''R'''. (3) Sub-paragraph (1) (g), omit '''X'' classified material', substitute ' material classified above ''R'''. (4) Sub-paragraph (1) (h), omit 'an ''X'' classification', substitute 'a classification above ''R''. (5) Omit paragraph (2), substitute the following paragraph: '(2) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.'. (6) Omit paragraph (4). (7) Omit paragraph (6), substitute the following paragraph: '(6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting.'. (8) Omit paragraph (7). (9) Omit paragraph (8), substitute the following paragraph: '(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.'. (10) Omit paragraph (9). (11) Omit paragraph (10), substitute the following paragraphs: '(10) That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records , and to move from place to place. '(10A) That the committee report by 30 April 1985.'. (12) Omit paragraph (11). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.11 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (1) Omit sub-paragraph (1) (a), substitute the following sub-paragraph: '(a) the effectiveness of such legislation to control adequately the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material;' (2) Sub-paragraph (1) (c), omit ' ''X'' '. (3) After sub-paragraph (1) (d) insert the following sub-paragraph: '(dd) the extent to which videotapes/discs containing pornographic and violent material are available to the community;'. I wish to say something about what we are seeking to do tonight because this debate is no more than a disagreeable and debasing farce. We are proposing to set up a Joint Select Committee on Video Classification which will stay in existence until the 25th of this month when Parliament comes to an end; and so does the Committee. If honourable members want to know why we have actually reached this stage, they will need to go back and see what took place earlier this year when the Opposition moved to disallow the so-called model code, that perfectly absurd model code, which came out of the mind of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and was put before the Senate and this House as well. That was going to be the model code for classification of pornographic video material. That was going to be the purpose it would achieve. We objected to it. We pointed out that there were no point of sale controls. We pointed out that the code was deficient in many ways. There was a debate here. Only one person on the Government side, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), spoke in that debate. Nobody else spoke on the Government side. A number of speakers spoke from our side but none from the Government side, although a number of people are listed to speak tonight. Dr Klugman —I raise a point of order on a matter of procedure. I do not wish to interfere with the speech by the honourable member for North Sydney. The honourable member has told us that he has circulated an amendment. I have seen the amendment before and I would like to see it again. Mr Ruddock —It is on the Notice Paper at page 9333. Mr SPEAKER —Does that satisfy the point raised? I think the honourable member for North Sydney accepts that it is not an unreasonable intervention by the honourable member for Prospect. Dr Klugman —That is our motion. I am talking about the amendment by the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Prospect resumes his seat we will make sure that the amendments are available to honourable members. I call the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr SPENDER —On 4 June, when we debated the disallowance of the Classification of Publications Ordinance I said that we should have an inquiry and through an inquiry we should be able to get the views of people. I said: . . . where the views of the Catholic bishops, other church groups and mothers groups are taken into consideration, and during which expert evidence is received as to the effect of hard core pornography on the minds of children. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), when I put to him: You hold a genuine community inquiry. became abusive, the poor fellow, because he is bereft of common sense or of anything to put to the House. He said: Not one Opposition member came up with any proposal that was worth listening to as to how the matter should be handled. (Extension of time granted). I specifically put a proposal that there should be an inquiry. That was his reaction. We did not hear from anyone that night, as I say, apart from the Minister. Why did we not hear from other members who were going to be here this evening? Why did they not come into the House? After all they are decent, honourable people who no doubt have an interest in this subject . They did not come because while being decent and honourable they lack the courage or the interest or, in simpler, terms, they were told: 'You are not to go into the House; you are not to speak on this subject; you are not to embarrass the Government, you are not to add to the embarrassment that the Attorney-General has already brought on this Government's shoulders'. We will hear those honourable members tonight express views on what should be done, on what may be done and on what might come out of this inquiry, but we will not hear from any one of them a single reason as to why he or she was not in the House on the last occasion. They were outside the doors, unwilling and afraid to come inside. If we go through the history of this proposal, not only is it perfectly plain that it came from the Opposition on 4 June, but also it is made even plainer by the fact that on 7 June the Speaker announced that he had received a message from the Senate for the establishment of a committee to inquire into the matters now before the House. That matter had come from the Opposition in the Senate and not from this Government. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) gave an undertaking on 7 June that the matter would come on for debate early in the next Budget sittings. Here we are now with two weeks or so before this House is dissolved and, as I say, we are going to go through the solemn farce of establishing a committee that will inquire and report in accordance with its terms of reference to this House. We all know that nothing will happen. We all know that the only reason this proposal has been brought on for debate tonight is that nothing can happen. We know that the Government, having control of the business of this House, had it desired to do so could have dealt with all of these matters very much earlier, but that has not been done. I make one or two general observations on the kinds of problems that the committee should be examining, if it were ever to examine anything, on its reconstitution after the election. It should be reconstituted after the election and it should not simply be treated here as it is now, as an expedient to be dealt with so that the Government can go to the people and say: 'Yes, we are concerned about this subject because we went ahead and established a committee to inquire into it and to report to this House'. I make the observation first of all that there can be no doubt that we are all shaped by the past and by experiences and that we cannot separate out the sexual behaviour or attitudes that we see or which are exhibited as part of our past. That particularly applies to children. Of course, in the case of children emulation and imitation is an inherent trait. When one thinks of the consequences to the minds of young children of being confronted, as I have said before, with, for example, scenes of bestiality-this Government still proposes that reasonable bestiality should be allowed to be viewed in certain circumstances-one can only conclude that the consequences for a sensitive child could be perfectly bad and perfectly foul. Let me make another observation of a general kind; that is, that a central question here is the long term effect on our society of constant and indiscriminate exposure to hard core pornography. We are not simply dealing with the present; we are not simply seeking to deal with the effects of hard core pornography on children; we have to look at what might be called the long term consequences-whether there will be long term consequences-in terms of the degradation of our society and of the debasement of the place that sexual love has in families and between couples. It was very well put by an American by the name of Victor B. Cline in a treatise called 'Where do you draw the line?'. He said: The real issues concern the consequences of many years of indulgence in obscene literature and arts, or, more exactly, the consequences of growing up in a community in which grossly obscene arts are highly prevalent, readily accessible , and sanctioned by the law. The question is: Where do we draw the line? There can be no doubt that a line should be drawn somewhere. I think all of us are agreed upon that. None of us would think that complete freedom was permissible. We are not talking about curtailing freedom of expression. After all, that is what the purveyors speak of . We are talking about drawing a line in respect of matters which do not concern freedom of expression of ideas. After all, bestiality is not really an expression of an idea. Where should the line decently be drawn in our society? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Steele Hall —I second the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(1.23 a.m.) —It is not my intention to speak at any length on this question, but honourable members could tempt me. I do not feel terribly strongly about the Opposition amendments. I suppose we will deal with them in the way we usually deal with amendments coming from the Opposition and we will not accept them. I shall just make a couple of points. I shall be Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Video Classification that is to be appointed. I certainly feel that it is worth while having a look at the issues that are being raised in the reference to the Select Committee. I do not want to reveal my prejudices too much at this stage, but it is obvious that everybody has prejudices in this sort of area. I was surprised to hear the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) suggesting in effect that if the Committee had been set up four weeks ago- Mr Spender —Two months ago. Dr KLUGMAN —Or even two months ago we would by now have solved all the problems that exist in that-- Mr Donald Cameron —At least you would have shown you were fair dinkum. Dr KLUGMAN —On this issue the honourable member for Moreton is one of the greatest hypocrites one could ever find. He is an absolute and complete hypocrite, if one remembers his history. There have been many investigations into this problem-there have been United Kingdom commissions; there has been at least one long- running presidential commission in the United States of America on the same topic-and I do not think that the results are clear cut. A combination of different groups in the community is now taking a stronger line on what they consider to be pornographic material. One has what I would broadly call the Fred Nile faction joined by the radical women's groups who take a similar attitude to the censorious one. It would be fair to say that my prejudices are against any form of censorship. Anyone who wants to stop me or other adults reading, seeing or hearing things would have to put up a good case that there is an actual danger to individuals in the community to establish a case in favour of bans. One hopes that most people in the community would take a similar basic attitude. Some people would be more easily persuaded that there is a danger to a significant section of the community if they are exposed to this type of material. Others would take a line that it is much less likely that exposure to this sort of material actually leads to grave consequences. I am not sure on that issue. I would like to refresh my memory on what findings have been reached by psychologists, psychiatrists and other people who claim some expertise in these matters when they have examined this subject in other countries. Since it has become an important issue in the community, I think it is important to establish such a committee. As I said earlier I see no great problems with amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney. To a large extent I think they would be covered by the motion that was moved by the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) . The only point I cannot follow is why it should be sought to delete 'X' from paragraph (1) (c). The implication is that X-rated videos should not be available at all for sale or hire. Is that the implication there and is it suggested that we should not consider what their effect would be in relation to children under the age of 18? Is it implied that X-rated material should not be available at all. Mr Spender —No, that is not the implication out of the terms of reference. Dr KLUGMAN —I cannot follow why it is desired to omit 'X' from paragraph 1 (c). Is it desired to have it read 'sale or hire attached to classified material'? Mr Spender —It simply widens it. Dr KLUGMAN —It widens it. I feel, as I am sure the committee will feel, that even without that amendment we would obviously look at material in general and the potential effect of it on individuals in the community. I think Parliament should have a basic commitment and a non-censorious attitude. At the same time, if it can be shown clearly that there are clear cut risks associated, obviously the Committee should report and advise Parliament and the Government that maybe the legislation relevant to these items should be changed. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Howe, B. L.Beddall, D. P. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. Mcleay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Cadman, A. G. Howard, J. W.Cameron, Donald Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ian McGauran, P. J.Dobie, J. D. M. MacKellar, M. J. R.Drummond, P. H. McVeigh, D. T.Edwards, Harry Millar, P. C.Fisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. White, P. N. D.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Theophanous, A. C. O'Keefe, F. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendments negatived. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just one question. The Government has moved some amendments to the motion and I have moved some amendments to the motion. We have had a vote upon one set of amendments. You have not specified which amendments we are voting on. I am not being critical- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I understood that the amendments moved by the Deputy Prime Minister were incorporated into the motion. Mr Spender —That answers my question. Thank you very much. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.37 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 1.37 a.m. (Tuesday) The following notice was given: Mr Young to move- That, in response to the petition of Dawson Waldron presented to the House on 2 October 1984, this House grants leave- (1) to the Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to issue and serve subpoenae for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings of the House as described in the Second Schedule of the petition ; (2) to the Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to adduce the said official records of the proceedings as evidence of what was in fact said in the House, and (3) to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in Court and to produce the said official records of proceedings and to give evidence in relation to the recording of proceedings providing that such officer or officers should not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in the Parliament. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 October 1984: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australian Egg Board, for year 1983-84. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determinations, dated 2 October 1984, listing fees for purposes of- Adoption of Children Ordinance. Building and Services Ordinance. Lakes Ordinance. Machinery Ordinance. Real Property Ordinance. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance. Registration of Deeds Ordinance. Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1150) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 5 March 1984: (1) Did his Department take delivery of a special fire truck which cost nearly $210,000 for use at the Ainslie Fire Station, Australian Capital Territory; if so, has it remained idle since it was delivered in July 1982. (2) It is a fact that it remains idle because of (a) unsettled union claims about allowances to operate it and (b) some unresolved questions about its safety. (3) What safety questions in relation to this vehicle require attention. (4) Is the vehicle, as suggested in news reports, under-braked. (5) Was the vehicle built in response to a tender specification prescribing its weight and braking capacity; if so, is the vehicle built to that specification. (6) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Canberra Times of 28 February 1984, that the Canberra Branch of the Federal Fire Fighters' Union has been willing to discuss the use of this vehicle, but that the union has not heard anything about getting the Skyjet operating for some months; if so, is the report correct. (7) Has his Department been inactive about resolving this dispute; if so, what are the reasons. (8) Has his attention been drawn to the acting A.C.T. Fire Commissioner's stated view that he was concerned about such an expensive piece of equipment lying idle. (9) Is this matter of concern to him as Minister, and what action has he personally taken to resolve the outstanding questions. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The Fire Brigade did, however, take delivery of a truck meeting this general description in January 1983 for use at the Fyshwick Fire Station. (2) There is a union claim for an allowance which has not yet been finalised, but an agreement was reached some time ago which allowed the vehicle to be placed in service pending resolution of the claim. It was necessary to withdraw it again to correct a number of structural problems which were discovered. These have now been rectified and the vehicle is now in service. (3) (4) and (5) None. The braking capacity was specified and the vehicle was required to meet both the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales Traffic Standards, including those in relation to tare weight. When delivered to Canberra in January 1983, the vehicle's brakes did not meet specification, but the manufacturer subsequently made the necessary adjustments. This was finalised in June 1983, after which time the vehicle was accepted by the brigade and could first have been considered available for use. The gross vehicle weight originally specified was exceeded with the concurrence of the Fire Commissioner, and still satisfied Australian standards. Although the vehicle then met specification, further brake up-grading and weight reduction were effected and more improvements are being considered. (6) Yes, but in some respects the report was inaccurate or incomplete. My Department held several discussions with the union resulting in an offer of an interim settlement being made. The Salary and Wages Pause Act 1982 and the 1983 National Wage Case principles precluded any formal resolution of the union's claim until at least 1 February 1984. Agreement has been reached on suspending action during a joint examination of the union's claim. (7) No. (See No. (6)). (8) Yes. (9) Yes. I have met with representatives from the Federal Firefighters' Union and have instructed my Department and the A.C.T. Fire Brigade to ensure that all related matters are resolved as quickly as possible. (Question No. 1643) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two such houses were vacant on 18 June 1984. They were the former South Vietnamese Embassy premises which have since been disposed of by public auction. (2) No. (Question No. 1664) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) What amount has been paid out in supporting parents benefits since the introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975. (2) What amount of this total or of other pension or benefit payments can be attributed to divorced people. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (1) The following table shows expenditure on supporting parents' benefits for each year since 1975. Males are the only persons for whom supporting parents' benefit is paid on account of divorce. Also included are figures for Class A and B widows' pension. Female divorcees with children receive Class A widow's pension and those without children Class B widow's pension. Supporting Widows' pensions (a) parents' benefits Class A Class B $m $m $m 1974-75 76.1 157.3 84.0 1975-76 127.2 208.7 116.5 1976-77 158.5 232. 9 137.1 1977-78 192.8 272.0 167.2 1978-79 226.7 311.5 187.5 1979-80 259.6 348. 3 212.8 1980-81 412.4 401.8 239.4 1981-82 605.9 427.6 284.2 1982-83 727.7 445 .1 312.0 1983-84 889.6 477.2 351.6 (a) The split of expenditure between Class A and Class B widows' pensions is estimated prior to 1980-81. (2) Expenditure on divorced people is not identified separately from other expenditure. The following table shows the proportion of supporting parent beneficiaries and Class A and B widow pensioners identified as divorced as at 30 June of the years in question. Supporting Widows' pensions (a) parents' benefits Class A Class B 1974-75 (a) . . .1675 .1058 1975-76 (a) . . .1895 .1157 1976-77 (a) . . .2445 .1315 1977-78 .0094 .2871 .1457 1978-79 .0118 .3172 .1582 1979-80 .0116 .3283 .1706 1980-81 .0085 .3439 .1813 1981-82 .0089 .3678 .1894 1982-83 .0105 .4049 .2036 1983-84 .0104 .4361 .2181 (a) Supporting parent's benefit became payable to divorced males with children in November 1977. (Question No. 1688) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 4 September 1984: Was the NRMA submission on Australian Capital Territory third party insurance rates dated 19 March 1984, used as the basis for the new A.C.T. third party insurance premiums announced on 11 June 1984. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (Question No. 1719) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 6 September 1984: (1) On what date did he receive a letter, dated 22 June 1984, from the Motorcycle Riders' Association requesting a meeting as soon as possible. (2) Did he reply to that letter; if not, why not. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The letter from the Motorcycle Riders' Association was received in my office on 25 June 1984. (2) The letter raised several issues that required consideration. I met with representatives of the Association on 7 September 1984 to discuss these issues. (Question No. 1750) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; is so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A memorandum from the Public Service Board entitled 'Encouragement of Union Membership' was received in the Department on 6 June, 1984. The full extent of the memorandum was published in the Department's Staff Bulletin (No. 1984/22) dated 21 June, 1984. (3) Action is proceeding on a review of existing practices and procedures in the Department and the development and introduction of any additional practices and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with the Public Service Board's advice. Existing practices include advice to Unions, on request, of the names of potential members employed in the Department and inviting representatives of appropriate unions to address new recruits attending induction courses. In addition, the Department employs a large industrial workforce, including car and transport drivers, storemen, printing tradesmen and associated staff, which is almost fully unionised. The responsibility for the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited (CACS) also falls within my portfolio. The Company, which is wholly owned by the Commonwealth, has operation and management responsibility for food, beverage and accommodation services in Commonwealth premises. The Company encourages its employees to be members of a trade union or other employee association which has coverage of the operations. Because of the policy adopted by the Company, a large number of its employees are members of the relevant union or staff association. (Question No. 1795) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Further to his Press release of 27 August 1984 concerning the construction of Commonwealth office buildings in 12 centres to reduce the rental cost for Commonwealth departments, is Shepparton, Victoria, one of the centres; if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Commonwealth already owns a building at Shepparton. My Department, however, is examining the feasibility of constructing a new office building on Commonwealth-owned land at Shepparton. (Question No. 1813) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No males or females were employed by my Department or any statutory authority within my portfolio under the Community Employment Program in June, July or August 1984. (Question No. 1815) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In June, July and August there wer no (a) males or (b) females engaged as temporary employees under the Community Employment program in (i), my Department . In (ii), any statutory authorities reporting to me, the figures are as follows : June (a) 23 (b) 5; July (a) 27 (b) 4; and August (a) 25 (b) 4. All were engaged by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. (Question No. 1829) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 13 September 1984. How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Employment Statistics: 1 June 1984-31 August 1984 Department Statutory Authorities Men Women Total Men Women Total June 1984 176 42 218 171 111 282 July 1984 190 46 236 171 112 283 August 1984 200 40 240 174 109 283 Total 566 128 694 516 332 848 (Question No. 1845) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Can he say whether the Government intends to extend repatriation benefits to Australians who were members of the Greek Army under British command between 1941 and 1945. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Repatriation Act, former members of allied forces of the 1939-45 War are eligible for service pensions if they satisfy certain conditions, including a minimum Australian residence requirement. The Act excludes persons whose only service was in forces that were 'irregular'. Insofar as the honourable member's question relates to former members of Greek forces from 1941 to 1945 who have subsequently become Australian citizens, the Repatriation Commission advises that Greek forces of the exiled King George which fought with the Allies in North Africa are eligible for service pensions subject to the conditions in the legislation and provided the Australian residence requirement is satisfied.