Wednesday, 20 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —Mr Speaker, for the information of honourable members I table interim report No. 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group conducted by Mr Justice Stewart. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of Interim Report No. 2, dated December 1984, of the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the activities of the Nugan Hand group, and (2) That the report be printed. Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification, I wonder whether the Minister will assure the House that some opportunity will be provided to debate this matter, because it is obviously of some consequence. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.03) —I take it that the Leader of the National Party has not seen the report. It may be that he will not want to debate it. Mr Peacock —We would have debated the report if we had received it at 8.30 this morning. Mr YOUNG —That is not true. The honourable member should not make such accusations. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The indulgence of the Chair to allow the Minister to answer a question of the Leader of the National Party does not entitle members to debate the issue. I take it that that was the response of the Leader of the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.04) —Whilst the Opposition will not oppose the Sugar Agreement Bill 1985, I intend to move an amendment because of the failure of the Hawke Labor Government to fulfil its commitments to the Australian sugar industry. I will return to the amendment shortly, but firstly I wish to deal with some of the comments made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech. The Bill contains as its schedule the new five-year agreement reached between the Queensland and Federal governments and signed on 28 June last year. The new agreement commenced on 1 July. The agreement has been presented to Parliament in line with a practice dating back to the 1920s. In 1923 the first agreement was finalised. By 1927 there was concern over the legal standing of some provisions, especially those relating to trade and embargos, and the agreement was formalised in Commonwealth legislation. There are several important aspects of the agreement. The embargo applying to imports of sugar into Australia will be eased for specialty sugars following consultation with the Queensland Government and industry represent- atives. Specialty sugar imports may now arrive in packs of up to five kilograms or five litres and in consignments of up to one tonne or one thousand litres. This will ease the administrative difficulties associated with the former arrangements under the old agreement. In some cases large shipments were delayed through Customs due to the presence of perhaps one or two small packs of specialty sugars in the bottom corner of a shipping container. This was clearly a waste of resources. However, I am aware that the sugar industry is acutely conscious of repercussions that imported sugar may have on the domestic market when we are exporting about three-quarters of our total production. The industry and the coalition parties will be monitoring the administration of clause 16 of the agreement to ensure that abuse does not occur due to this change to the embargo provisions. The legislation also indicates that a new pricing mechanism will be used to fix the domestic sugar price. This mechanism has been developed by the industry in consultation with the governments and should prove acceptable. The other two principal aspects relate to the domestic and export sugar rebates. The domestic sugar rebate is discontinued under the new agreement. In 1983 it was set at $15 per tonne. The rebate was payable to fruit processors using sugar in the manufacture of certain fruit products. To qualify for the rebate processors had to meet a range of conditions, including that they pay not less than specified minimum prices for fresh fruit. Those minimum prices were determined by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. The rebate was internal to the industry. Therefore, its abolition has no impact on government funds. Secondly, the export sugar rebate is to continue although it is subject to review. The rebate is operated by the Export Sugar Committee, which pays a rebate to manufacturing exporters where the home price is higher than the world price. Again, it must be stressed that this rebate is financed by the sugar industry. Under the new agreement Queensland will administer the system through the State Sugar Board, with the exception that the Committee Chairman will be a representative of the Federal Department of Primary Industry. These new provisions within the renegotiated agreement have been settled by the two governments in consultation with the industry and will now be closely monitored to ensure that each change will be for the betterment of the industry as a whole. I turn now to the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion and 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 sugar industry and the communities dependent on the industry face a serious economic downturn due to the failure of the Government to honour its pre-election promises to assist the depressed sugar industry'. I have moved this amendment because of the very great difficulties now facing the Australian sugar industry. We cannot underestimate the serious social problems that are starting to emerge, from Cairns right down the Queensland coast, in most of the provincial cities and to a lesser extent in the Tweed River district and in Grafton in New South Wales. I was very pleased to attend the recent annual conference of the Queensland Cane Growers Council in Brisbane and to hear first hand of the very great problems that lie ahead over the next two years. Among the National Party members of parliament who accompanied me in Brisbane were the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). I know also that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) was very much involved and concerned. Indeed, the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) is also very seriously concerned with this problem. The honourable member for Dawson has been a tireless worker on behalf of the sugar industry and, in representing the major centre of Mackay, is very closely involved with its welfare. The honourable member for Dawson and I were the first two members of parliament for many years to be invited to attend a special session of the full council of the Queensland Cane Growers Council. While in Brisbane I met leaders of the milling and other organisations within the sugar industry. These discussions confirmed the very urgent need for the Hawke Labor Government to stop trying to fob off the industry and to initiate effective action which will overcome the pending market downturn. It is high time this Government recognised that primary industries such as the sugar industry are the starting point for an economic multiplier effect which sparks off new rounds of activity along a chain of related industries. There are, for example, about 6,600 sugar cane growers in Australia. They are mostly in Queensland. The industry chain directly supports 20,000 jobs and indirectly supports another 100,000 employees. About 80 per cent of sugar production is exported. In 1983 the industry grossed $617m in overseas earnings. Two years earlier it grossed more than $1.1 billion. It is no small industry by any standard. The industry, including growers and millers, has sought time and again to instil within the Hawke Labor Government a sense of urgency over its looming cost-price crisis. The industry has predicted that the number one pool price for the 1984 season will be around $235 a tonne, yet $240 is the bare minimum floor price for existence. In the 1985 season the pool price is expected to decline further to about $180 a tonne and in 1986 will have plummeted to around $140 to $160 a tonne. The industry is being caught between rising costs of labour, fuel and other inputs on the one hand and depressed export returns on the other. The average income per sugar cane farm in 1983-84 was $5,622. I think that demonstrates the seriousness of the crisis facing not only the industry but also the families involved in this industry. Many of them today are living in poverty. At this month's market sugar prices, the net return to the raw sugar industry is about $100 per tonne of sugar or about $9 per tonne of cane to the grower. That $9 is about half the price of a tonne of cow manure and a quarter of the price of a tonne of firewood in Brisbane. That price absolutely stinks. It is no wonder that the sugar growers of Queensland are in dire difficulties. Today the world prices are at their lowest level, in real terms, in recorded history. To this I would add that consumers in Australia have received a net transfer of payments from the sugar industry over the past decade of more than $300m. I strongly urge the Hawke Labor Government to guarantee immediately a minimum average price for cane based on $240 a tonne of sugar for the 1984, 1985 and 1986 seasons. It is not too much to ask for aid which may amount to about $80m to an industry which, as I have said, has subsidised consumers by more than $300m in one decade. As a longer term solution, the Government must also inject substantial funds into research towards alternative uses of sugar, looking in particular at the production of ethanol for fuel. These aid measures should be associated with reconstruction assistance to growers and to the mills. It is quite clear that although the industry is relatively efficient we must ensure it continues to move towards maximum efficiency in the production and distribution of sugar. I believe that someone with knowledge of the industry should be appointed as a matter of urgency to inquire into the long term need to restructure the mill operations and the industry generally. This inquiry should recommend long term measures which the Commonwealth and Queensland governments can take to place the industry on a more competitive and profitable basis. It should seek out those areas where deregulation can be instituted to the advantage of the industry. It will be interesting to see whether the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who I know are concerned about this industry, will support these initiatives or whether their pledges to support the sugar industry become meaningless platitudes because of the Party to which they belong. I do hope that they will rise and fight for the sugar growers, as the National Party members will, on the coast right down to the electorates of Richmond and Page. The main factor causing the slump in world prices is the excessive, unrealistic subsidies paid to beet producers, especially in the European Economic Community, which encourage overproduction and mountainous stockpiles. Due to this subsidisation and immense carryover stocks, the world price for 1983-84 slumped to an average of $165 a tonne, and to $100 a tonne today, as I mentioned earlier. In a recent bulletin, the Queensland Cane Growers Council said that world overproduction was like the weather; everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it. So far it seems as impossible to reduce that protection as it is to control the weather. It was pleasing that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry responded to industry calls and sought the EEC's endorsement of a proposed meeting between the four largest world producers-Australia, the EEC, Brazil and Cuba. I await with interest a detailed statement to this Parliament on the outcome of those recent talks in Brussels. I call upon the Minister to make a statement to this Parliament. The Opposition recognises that the Government can do only so much to initiate world action to reduce stockpiles and to halt dumping practices. Yet this is no excuse for the apathetic attitude that seems to have overcome this Government in facing up to the real social and economic crisis facing the Australian sugar growers and the industry as a whole. The position is clear: We have a short term crisis on our hands, and if action is not taken at government level to assist the industry over the next two years, we can say goodbye to thousands of jobs, to millions of dollars in export income and, importantly, to the price stability which has kept sugar down to very favourable domestic price levels. The major centres of Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Bundaberg and Grafton are largely dependent on the viability of the sugar industry. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry have so far given cane growers no hope since the election. They gave them plenty of hope and bait before the election. Now they have their chance to prove their credentials and honour on 1 April at the sugar summit. There is no point in the Government arguing that the industry should take care of itself. There is no point in the Government turning a blind eye to this serious problem. It did not treat either the motor industry or Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd in this manner. Clearly, the sugar industry has already rationalised and improved its productivity. This point cannot be overemphasised. Productivity is up and assistance is low. The yield achieved by sugar cane growers is now an average 80 tonnes of cane and 11 tonnes of raw sugar per hectare-double the yield of 60 years ago. When considering the case for aid, it is essential to look not only at the general rates of assistance to agriculture but also to the actual assistance applying to the industry at present. The Industries Assistance Commission report 'Assistance to Australian Agriculture', published in 1983, reveals a downward trend in assistance to sugar growers. It is an alarming figure. I ask people to listen to it. The effective assistance to sugar growing in 1970-71 was 38 per cent. By 1972-73 this was down to 13 per cent and another two years later was minus 19 per cent. Since 1974-75 the minus rate has continued and it stood at minus 13 per cent in 1980-81. The Australian industry is being forced to compete under these circumstances against the heavily supported and subsidised industry in the European Economic Community. Put simply, the glut of sugar beet was considered the easiest short term solution to a huge agricultural problem of the Community's own making. Why should our industry be allowed to pay for the failure of EEC politicians to bite the bullet? The Hawke Labor Government should not allow the EEC to 'pick off' our industries, thus ensuring for itself larger shares and greater power over the world agricultural markets. If the Hawke Government lets this happen to the sugar industry, who will be next-the dairy industry, the beef industry, the wheat industry, the dried fruits industry and so on? Indeed, Australia, which is one of the most efficient agricultural producing nations, could well have to retreat from and vacate markets one by one. These markets would be taken over by the EEC which has subsidised stockpiles of agricultural products. This would mean an increase in the price of food to consumers worldwide and a drop in the living standards of Australians to a Third World status. The Hawke Government would stand condemned in the history of this nation if it allowed this to happen to the sugar industry. It would set a very serious precedent that no government should allow to occur. At current price trends and costs of production, the Queensland Cane Growers Council believes that we risk losing every one of Australia's long term sugar contracts by 1987 with the possible exception of the United States contract. Even the United States contract would be under immense pressure. We risk sliding into a supply-demand abyss from which we will never emerge. I place on record the actual response of this Government to the challenge to undergird the sugar industry. To date we have seen nothing more than a disgraceful series of pre-election promises and post-election let-downs. The patience of the industry is wearing very thin. The industry firmly believes that it achieved its long-awaited breakthrough when the Prime Minister went to Brisbane on 22 November, a week before the election. The lack of a meaningful follow-up since polling day suggests that the industry was given a load of 'Hawke-talk' and that there was never any real intention on the part of the Government to honour its commitments. The long, sorry saga dates back to the 1983 election campaign when Labor promised in its policy speech the following: . . . in the current crisis, to give sympathetic consideration to an industry loan to the established Queensland and N.S.W. industry. The primary industry spokesman went a step further and floated the idea of an underwriting scheme when talking with media people in Queensland. Since then the Minister has shown some fancy footwork. For most of 1983 he said the outcome of an Industries Assistance Commission report would have to be awaited. When that report came he rejected the proposal for an underwriting scheme to apply from 1 July 1984. By the end of the year he concentrated on attacking the Queensland Government in a bid to divert attention away from the failures of his own Government. Yet the Queensland Government has contributed $31m while the Hawke Labor Government has contributed only $16.5m. The Minister ought to realise that he has run out of diversions and that the industry is running out of time. The only aid quoted by the Minister in his statements has been a token $16.5m for carry-on finance and debt reconstruction to support a billion dollar export industry. It is half the payments to date of the Queensland Government. Just this week the Queensland Government injected a further $1.5m to try to help the industry a little further. The Prime Minister could not avoid taking on some responsibility for Labor's dismal performance in its first term during the 1984 election campaign. The matter came to a head when 1,200 cane growers descended on the cane train to Brisbane to voice their concerns to the Prime Minister. His response was, in part: I undertake on behalf of the Federal Government to you and to the industry that we will undertake a financial commitment to assist you on the basis that the review-which is accelerated as a result of the co-operation with the State Government-move towards drawing up an overall package which is going to result in a strong and viable industry. What has happened since? In a negative Press statement of 18 January the Minister for Primary Industry once again backed away from the Prime Minister's undertakings. There were no new initiatives. The only comment worthy of note was: As the Prime Minister has indicated to the Queensland Government, across-the-board assistance such as was raised before by the industry has shown to be overly expensive, undirected and largely ineffective in helping those growers most in need. The Prime Minister has recently tried two more tacks in response to the pressure being applied. Firstly, he said he would consider aid further down the track-next year or perhaps, if the industry was lucky, late in 1985. That is three years after his Party committed itself to substantial aid for the industry. I repeat: The matter cannot be pigeon-holed any longer without risking long term industry damage. The second diversion has been the Prime Minister's suggestion of a liaison committee to oversee the industry's own self-help review. In other words, the industry would lose more of its control over its own destiny. The proposal has been rejected out of hand by the Queensland Cane Growers' Council. It is time the Hawke Labor Government had a good look at its blinkered, sectional interest policies. It is time it had a good look at itself. Its inadequate response to the sugar industry goes to the heart of the greatest challenge facing this country-the will and the ability to tackle Australia's burgeoning national and foreign debt. We simply cannot forsake those established export industries and expect to pay our way out of trouble. We cannot let Australia's sugar industry, as one of our principal export industries, simply wither away. The industry has heavily supported our sugar consumers in the past years. The Government should not dingo on the industry in its time of need. It would be a disgraceful state of affairs if the Hawke Labor Government allowed an efficient, established industry to fall victim to the aggressive subsidisation policies of the EEC-a community which has failed to bite the bullet of internal rationalisation. The Prime Minister, the Premier of Queensland and industry representatives are to meet on 1 April. The Hawke Labor Government has its chance to recover some of the credibility it has lost by announcing that it will underpin the floor price to $240 a tonne-the bare subsistence level-as a prelude to that meeting. Should it do so I will be the first to offer congratulations to the Government. The nation as a whole will be the big long term winner from such an action as long as it is associated with further adjustment and reconstruction amongst the growers and also within the milling operations. If the Government fails to do the right thing it will plunge the sugar industry and those involved in it-the growers, the mill workers and their families, and the thousands of people who are employed indirectly in this industry-into economic and social chaos. If the Government fails to come to the aid of the sugar industry, as it has come to the aid of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the motor industry, it will treat a section of the Australian community with gross inequity. The representatives on the other side of the House may be fighting that; I do not know. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is sitting at the table, is looking at one of the honourable members representing a sugar seat and being cynical about the sugar growers and their problems. I hope that that cynicism does not permeate the ranks of the Labor Government because if it does it will get the condemnation and damnation that it deserves. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.31) —I wish to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your re-election as Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of this House. You have performed the duties of your high office with fearless independence, and I look forward to speaking in this House under your chairmanship for many years to come. I had hoped at the outset of this debate that the great problems facing the sugar industry would not be trivialised, that the debate would not be broken down into party haggling in this House, and that the issue facing the sugar industry-the urgent need to ensure that government is cognisant of the requirements of the sugar industry-would transcend party politics and ensure that members of both sides of this House would join together to ensure that a great Australian industry receives the help that it so desperately needs. Prior to the last Federal election the seat which I have the honour of representing could correctly have been described as a sugar seat. Following the redistribution it no longer is a sugar seat. I have the honour of representing a lesser number of cane farmers in my new electorate. I have had a close association with the sugar industry all my life. I come from a town called Tully in north Queensland, one of the great sugar producing areas of Australia. I was raised on a sugar cane farm and I would think that of all the members of this House I have had the closest association with the growing side of the sugar industry. Mr Braithwaite —Careful. Mr LINDSAY —I respond to the honourable member for Dawson by saying that I would be pleased to hear him identify another member of this House-I do not say that in a denigrating way-who has served the growing side of the sugar industry longer than I have. Last year the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government reached agreement on a number of critical issues regarding the Australian sugar industry. The Schedule to the Sugar Agreement Bill contains a copy of the Sugar Agreement 1984 made between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland. However, the purpose of this Bill is to continue the prohibition of the importation of sugar and certain sugar products subject to certain exceptions. Clause 16 of the Sugar Agreement 1984 provides for the prohibition of the importation of sugar. Sugar agreements between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland have, since 1923, enabled the Queensland Government to acquire all sugar produced in Queensland and to purchase all sugar produced in New South Wales. These agreements have provided that all sugar acquired by the Queensland Government should be made available for domestic consumption at an administered price and also for export. At the same time there has been an embargo on imports of sugar, golden syrup and treacle. Customs duties have been imposed on alternative sweetners and there have been controls over imports. The Industries Assistance Commission in its final report on the sugar industry called for the widespread deregulation of the industry. It recommended the immediate abolition of the import embargo on sugar, the ending of the domestic price arrangements and that prices be determined by the market. These recommendations were rejected by the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. Clause 16 of the Sugar Agreement 1984 continues in effect the prohibition of the importation of sugar. Although the embargo will be relaxed to permit the importation of specialty sugars not produced in Australia, the previous Sugar Agreement which operated from October 1979 required the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry or an authorised officer to be obtained for such imports. However, sub-clause (2) of clause 16 of the Sugar Agreement 1984 provides, inter alia, that sugar may be imported without approval in packs of up to 5 kilograms or 5 litres and in consignments not exceeding one tonne or 1,000 litres. There are important provisions in the Sugar Agreement 1984 in regard to fixing the domestic sugar price. The price of different grades of sugar and certain sugar products is determined in accordance with the provisions of clause 6 of the Sugar Agreement 1984. The price for these products is arrived at having regard to a number of factors, including the stipulated manufacturer's price for manufacturing grade bulk refined sugar. The maximum price for such sugar will be determined in accordance with the formula set out in clause 6 of the Sugar Agreement 1984, which takes into account movements in the consumer price index and the world market price for sugar. The Sugar Agreement 1984 came into force from 1 July 1984. There was a 5.7 per cent increase in the maximum price. This was a lesser increase than had been sought by the Queensland Government and the Queensland Cane Growers Council. It is the intention of clause 6 of the Sugar Agreement 1984 that the price will now be adjusted every six months and the maximum price change between any two six-monthly periods will be limited to the movement in the consumer price index. But the first review of price from 1 January 1985 resulted in no increase. The prognosis for price review as at 1 July 1985 is that there will be no increase. It seems most likely that it will not be until January 1986 that an increase will be effected and that this increase will be 50 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index in the six months to September 1985. It has been claimed by industry representatives that the Sugar Agreement 1984, as described in the Schedule of this Bill, provides for a price review mechanism which varies from that which was believed to have been agreed during negotiations between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government, in that sub-clause (5) of clause 6 of the Sugar Agreement 1984 was intended to provide for a minimum increase after a period of no increase in prices paid. However, it is clear that sub-clause (5) of clause 6 as contained in the Sugar Agreement 1984 provides that the only increase will be 50 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index. The domestic price review mechanism virtually guarantees that the maximum price of sugar will move at about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the rate of domestic inflation. This means that there will be a continuation of a decline in real terms in the price of sugar for domestic consumption. The price of other grades of sugar, golden syrup and treacle is to be determined as a proportion of the stipulated price for manufacturing grade sugar. As was stated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech, the sugar industry is conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations and practices. In initiating the review program sugar industry representatives adopted two important principles. The first principle was that the industry should continue to strive for economic efficiency and future viability and in pursuit of that objective should undertake such adjustments to industry policy, conditions and practices as are demonstrated to be appropriate. Secondly, it was decided that this should be done in a way and at a rate to ensure that social disruption is not excessive. A steering committee formed for the conduct of the review program has recognised the need to involve as many people in the industry as possible in the review in order to obtain consensus and to enhance the acceptance of change within the industry. The committee adopted a timetable which provided for consideration of the issues at a grass-roots level. It is intended that a final report will be prepared and be available at the end of November 1985. I repeat that this will be done at the end of November 1985. If issues cannot be resolved by consensus these matters will be referred to an inquiry for investigation and report by the end of 1986. I repeat, by the end of 1986. This will allow for consideration of the report and the preparation, scrutiny and enactment of appropriate legislation by the Queensland Government in time for the commencement of the 1987 sugar season. It should be noted that legislation governing the structure and operation of the sugar industry-except for the Sugar Agreement of 1984-is exclusively Queensland legislation. Dr Rex Patterson, a former member of this House, remarked in an article published in the Cairns Post on Monday, 18 March 1985: The Queensland Government, which has virtual control over the entire sugar industry, has got off lightly in this crisis. There is a dual responsibility of government, both Federal and State, to ensure the viability and the long term survival of our great Australian sugar industry. Sugar cane farming in this country is a principal agricultural activity conducted in the higher rainfall areas from the alluvial flood plains and coastal regions north of Grafton, New South Wales, to Mossman in far north Queensland. Processed sugar cane, amounting to some 3.5 million tonnes of sugar, is Australia's second most valuable export crop and the nation's fourth largest agricultural export earner. Financial returns to Australian cane growers are dependent on sales of sugar in three market sectors. The first sector is the domestic market in which 20 per cent of the total crop is sold at a price in accordance with the provisions of the Sugar Agreement 1984. The second sector is that concerning long term contracts. Australia has enjoyed long term contract arrangements with a number of sugar importing nations such as China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. It also has had contracts with Japan, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. However, following Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in the late 1960s cane producers secured replacement contracts initially with Japan and the United States of America. However, most of Australia's long term contracts either have expired or will expire shortly. I understand that the few remaining current contracts will have expired by 1987. Given the current low level of free market prices, there are few prospects for securing any viable long term contracts. Overseas buyers have access to abundant supplies of sugar at low prices and have little incentive to complete contracts to provide secure supplies at prices remunerative to producers. Thirdly, I mention the free markets in which prices fluctuate greatly. During the past five years export market prices have steadily declined to an all time low. Without international initiatives to stabilise prices, further declines are inevitable. Changes to any of these three markets directly affect the per tonne prices of cane paid to growers. The sugar industry provides the economic base for towns and cities stretching from Grafton in New South Wales to Mossman in far north Queensland. An assessment by the Queensland Cane Growers Council indicates that both directly and indirectly more than 200,000 people are estimated to be dependent on the sugar industry and more than 20,000 people on growing and milling. In the Ingham district nearly 26 per cent of the population is employed in agriculture; sugar production accounts for 90 per cent of total value of agricultural production. In the Ayr district more than 27 per cent of the population is employed in agriculture; sugar production accounts for 95 per cent of the total value of agricultural production. Communities whose livelihoods depend in the main on a good sugar price are becoming unsure not only of their short term but also of their long term future. There certainly is a crisis of confidence among sugar growers in northern Queensland. They are afraid, many with justifiable reasons, that the financial institutions, banks, insurance companies and lenders may well tighten the conditions in which they grant loans to sugar cane farmers. It is undeniable that assistance is required for the grower to cover the variable and fixed costs faced by sugar growers. Not only living expenses but also fixed prices of a host of commodities are ever increasing. Funding for debt reconstruction is an essential component of any aid package with which either the Federal or State Government might be inclined to assist the sugar industry. Farmers without debts can survive on $240 a tonne or about $20 a tonne of cane with an average CCS-commercial cane sugar-of 13.5, but they cannot provide out of those moneys for replacement of equipment or return on capital. Mr Braithwaite —Cost of their own labour. Mr LINDSAY —They cannot provide for the cost of their own labour. For example, in Ingham one important statistic that was brought to my attention was that 17.5 per cent of sugar growers are financially marginal in terms of the sugar industry throughout Queensland. Let us look at the projected price for sugar. In 1985 it is anticipated that there will be a price of $210 for No. 2 pool. Translated to the grower, that means a price of $18.28c in the Ingham area at an average CCS of 13.5. In 1986 the projected price for No. 2 pool is $175 per tonne of sugar or $15.29 per tonne of cane, for growers, at an average CCS of 13.5. The big price paid to growers in 1980 enabled growers to take the opportunity to upgrade their equipment, and farmers were urged to buy land for expansion. They carried out improvements and the costs went up. Every farm machinery dealer and most of the businesses in the sugar communities also increased their prices in line with the general prosperity of the industry. Industry leaders have estimated that in 1984 revenue collected through the various Federal government charges amounted to $118m. I believe that the Federal Government will consider a minimum price support scheme for the sugar industry of about $3 per tonne. Based on a total production of about 26 million tonnes of cane, that would involve a package of aid amounting to $80 through the 1985-86 year. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had a meeting in Brisbane in November last year where those proposals were put to him. I am certain that at a meeting to be held between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland on 1 April this year these matters will be discussed again and that the urgency confronting the sugar industry in Queensland will be hammered again and again to our Federal and State leaders. We have had visits by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) to Ingham to meet with sugar cane growers. We have had visits by the Minister for Primary Industry to Giru and Ingham to meet with members of the sugar industry. We have had countless conversations with members of the Queensland Cane Growers Council and other persons associated with the production of sugar cane in an endeavour to ascertain the precise and detailed nature of the issues confronting the sugar industry. I believe that both Federal and State governments have an imperative duty to address this problem in the short term. The industry cannot wait for reviews and investigations while cane farmers are quickly sliding towards a situation whereby the confidence of financial institutions in their future viability will be lost. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.52) —Before I speak directly to the Sugar Agreement Bill, I wish to make some comments on the speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). I welcome his suggestion that a bipartisan approach be taken at both the State and the Federal level to solve the sugar industry's problems. I hope that theme will continue throughout this debate, because never has there been such a need for a joint State and Federal approach to the problems of such an important industry. I also place my record on the table. I asked the honourable member for Herbert about his lifetime involvement in the sugar industry because his involvement is different from mine only in terms of the number of years each of us has lived. I was born on a cane farm. I owned a cane farm. In retrospect, probably I was wise to have sold it at the time I did. Having been involved in the rural industry up to the age of 20, I moved into tax accounting and handled the affairs of many clients involved in the cane farming industry. I was also the auditor for five of the co-operative sugar mills in my area. I am not saying that the record of the honourable member for Herbert is not as great as he said it was; I am just stating my record. I also wish to say at the outset that I do not intend to deal in my speech with material that will be dealt with by other members. I believe that there are too many principles involved in this legislation for me to have recorded in Hansard statements which may be repetitious in certain respects. This legislation now before the Parliament provides the first opportunity for this House to have a full-blooded debate on the sugar industry and on the crisis in which it now finds itself. This is in spite of notices of motion that I frequently presented to the Thirty-third Parliament requesting such a debate. As I recall, this is the first measure relating to the sugar industry to be introduced by this Government in its over 24 months in office. I regret the absence of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) from this House during this part of the debate because this is probably the most important debate that this House has faced. Refusal to bring on for debate such an important matter has meant that for two years the sugar industry has been subject to delays. Positive help and direction two years ago could have led to vital reconstruction, whereas only confusion and despair prevail today. I attended three of the four sugar industry annual conferences held in the past two weeks; that is, the conferences of the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd, the Queensland Cane Growers Council and the Co-operative Sugar Mills Association. Also, with the Opposition spokesman for primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), I had discussions with all three groups as well as with the Australian Sugar Producers Association Ltd, the Queensland Sugar Board and CSR Ltd refiners. I realise there is no room now for political point scoring if the sugar industry is to survive. On that point, I agree wholeheartedly with the honourable member for Herbert. The present Bill is welcomed by the Opposition. It is a machinery Bill to renew the Queensland-Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with some variations. The first proposed variation is to index prices at six-monthly intervals to movements in the consumer price index, in place of the previous 12-monthly review. It is claimed that the formula will bring domestic price movements more directly in line with world price movements. If this is the situation I must question the Government and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics bringing the world price to the lowest common denominator and not to a more realistic price, a price which covers at least the cost of production. The CPI figure used to be the discounted figure after allowing for Medicare? If it is to be the Medicare-fiddle CPI figure the sugar industry is being short paid once again. The Agreement extends the prohibition on the import of sugar to the end of the Agreement on 30 June 1989. However, I believe caution must be exercised in interpreting the Minister's remarks that the Government does not intend at this stage to remove the import embargo on sugar. Perhaps we should ask the Minister to wait and see what his reaction is after that date. This brings out the whole question of tariffs and the protection of Australian manufacturing industry. It is claimed that in the current trade and pricing environment for Australia's primary industries the embargo is a direct subsidy paid by Australian consumers against the low world price. Looked at in the light of today's prices, perhaps that is correct, but the industry claims that over the past 10 years, when the world cycle consistently put world prices above the domestic price, the sugar industry has in fact subsidised the Australian consumer to the extent of a figure in excess of $320m. Mr Hunt —That should not be forgotten. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. Honourable members should bear in mind that that $320m does not reflect the real price increases that have been sustained, with the impact of inflation over those 10 years and today's devalued dollar. So the subsidy would be a great deal more than that figure in today's terms. Mr Blunt —It would be $408m in real terms. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, it would be $408m. The Government should also look at the Industries Assistance Commission report on assistance to Australian agriculture. That report puts the myth of protection in its proper perspective. It indicates that assistance to sugar growing in 1970-71 was 38 per cent. Within two years assistance decreased to 13 per cent, and a further two years later was minus 19 per cent. By 1980-81 it stood at minus 13 per cent. So much for the subsidisation of the industry! In overall terms primary industry in Australia has an effective protection rate of 8 per cent. In 1970 it was 28 per cent. Today, manufacturing industry has an effective protection rate of 24 per cent. This is only 12 per cent lower than the 1970 figure of 36 per cent. Figures suggest that it costs Australians approximately $23,000 for each worker in the motor car manufacturing industry to protect that industry's inefficiency. For the same reason, each Australian-produced car costs $3,000 to $4,000 more than its overseas counterpart. Mr Hunt —I wish this was being broadcast. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will try again tomorrow. The National Farmers Federation recently calculated that it was costing each farm in Australia $16,000 annually to protect inefficient secondary industries and to absorb government sponsored charges and taxes. In fact, I understand that the Government has adjourned its proposed summit on farm costs to examine the NFF findings. All of this bears out the fact that primary industries-in this instance cane farmers-are paying subsidies and not receiving them. So let us not talk about the great subsidy the embargo on imported sugar provides without looking at the matter over a ten-year cycle. Let us take into account the costs to primary industry, in this case the sugar industry, in giving protection to secondary industry. Let us also remember that the prices set under the formula for domestic sugar are gross prices. Inevitably, the Australian industry must meet the market and the influence of competition from alternative sweeteners on the market. The formula prices are often discounted to meet and retain a particular market. In all, the Agreement ensures that the Australian consumer will have available a guaranteed supply of sugar in a natural form and of the highest quality which will meet the most stringent of world health regulations, and consumers will be assured that it has been produced using the most efficient method and at the least cost. Can the Australian consumer say that about any other Australian manufactured product? I say the answer to that is no. In spite of all this, the IAC report which basically contained the recommendations of the armchair economists of the BAE has concluded that the industry would become more efficient if it were deregulated. Two years ago, on the presentation of the report, the Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry, disclaimed the report as being impractical and said that it would not be implemented. We in the Opposition agreed with that point of view. However, by denying any worthwhile assistance to the sugar industry, the Government has encouraged the industry to conduct its own review. It may be said that it has set the industry up to be its own executioner. There is no doubt that the Government is insisting on the deregulation suggested by the IAC report, although the BAE economists acknowledged-they did this at many meetings in my electorate-that this report was an economic survey that did not take into account the industrial and social implications of its recommendations. I reiterate that no consideration whatsoever was given to the industrial and social implications of the recommendations in the IAC report. Why are these consequences, both industrial and social, so important? Firstly, apart from the 6,600 farming families directly involved in the growing of sugar cane, a further 20,000 jobs are fully involved in the sugar process. They are the jobs of the cane harvester contractors, the mill workers, the sugar transport workers, the shippers, the refiners and so on. However, the industry supports an estimated 100,000 other jobs. The people who hold these jobs and their families comprise the bulk of the population of many Queensland and northern New South Wales towns. Many of these were mentioned by the honourable member for Herbert. Many towns within my own electorate of Dawson, which produces over 40 per cent of Australia's production, will be in a similar situation. The bigger cities also rely very heavily on sugar. Let no one doubt that there will be many economic, industrial and social consequences if the industry is forced to deregulate in isolation from the costs of the greater regulation of labour resources in other Australian industries. I say earnestly to the Minister that the industry will and perhaps should deregulate, but only at the same pace as this Government is prepared to deregulate the centralised wage system in this country and at the same rate as it withdraws protection from all other Australian industries. I repeat that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry must recommend the deregulation of the most regulated resource in the cane farming system today; that is, labour. The sugar industry does not want to be the first fatality of deregulation as it was chosen to be the pioneer of the domestic pricing formula to relate Australian prices more closely to international prices. The industry cannot completely deregulate in the present climate and achieve savings which allow it to produce sugar at world prices when every other nation in the world heavily subsidises its domestic production and puts a lesser percentage of its production on the world market. That is why it is laughable to have the Prime Minister tell the industry that Government support will be withheld until Australia can produce sugar at a cost less than the sale price on the world market. It just is not on if the sugar industry deregulates in isolation and has to bear the cost of government charges built into fuel, fertiliser, chemicals, labour costs and taxes. I am suggesting that some deregulation can be brought about in both the growing and the manufacturing sectors. In fact, the following question was posed in recent talks we had with the industry: If a person were to commence a sugar industry in 1985, would the industry be built around the present regulations that have developed within the industry since early in the century? The short answer would be that it would be crazy for any person to start a sugar industry at the moment with world prices being under the costs of production, even on the historic value of capitalisation of the assets. The Ord River is a good example of this exercise. One could not even commence an industry based just on the domestic Australian market in today's situation without subsidies being involved. The present regulations were set in place when the Australian industry supplied most of its product to the Australian market and only 10 to 20 per cent to the world market. Today the figures are reversed, with about 20 per cent going to the domestic market and 80 per cent to the export market. The figure of 80 per cent for Australia's production which goes to the export trade compares unfavourably with the export production of other major exporters and competitors. South Africa exports only 38 per cent; Brazil, 31 per cent; and the European Economic Community, 27 per cent. Cuba's exports are geared mainly to the supply of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics market. Therefore, Australia is the most vulnerable of all the nations. It supplies more of its production to the world market than do its competitors, it has the least support of all for the high domestic market, it is unsubsidised in comparison with the highly corrupt practices of other nations and it has to meet high government charges and do all its own research and development, except for $500,000 paid by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the Sugar Research Institute at Mackay. There is room to remove some of these regulations. I have been advised that if double harvesting shifts were allowed and mills worked seven days a week without penalty rates, this would provide great savings within each mill area. If the prosperity bonus awarded to the industry three years ago could be removed from the award because of the crisis, the costs would be lessened. If cane transport systems could be integrated to better effect, savings would result. If rezoning of assignments between mills were agreed to, obviously savings would eventuate. I know of some amalgamation talks already going on between various milling authorities, brought about by this crisis, which could assist materially the economics of those mills. The Central Cane Prices Board has to be examined as to its effectiveness, and perhaps deregulation here would assist the cane growing sector. It has been suggested that division of an assignment for sale to several purchasers or the substitution of cane lands bordering urban development would assist in maintaining production levels and in keeping unit costs of growing cane down. Where farmers have available cleared land, roaming on that land should be encouraged in order to provide alternative crop potential and better economic utilisation of the land. I am sure that both growers and millers alike would see the wisdom of deregulating the labour market itself. Yes, the industry can deregulate in some ways and would, I believe, completely deregulate in parallel with deregulation in, and a quitting of protection to, all Australian industry. What is of concern is that the Federal Government, in the delay of two years caused by its procrastination and various changes in attitude, and in view of a further expected delay of 18 months before the review committee can partially report, will force deregulation on the sugar industry through bankruptcy and liquidation to remove 30 per cent of the present participants, as I understand has been suggested by the BAE. I warn the Minister that this is just not on. The economic upheaval would be minor compared to the social and industrial consequences of letting this industry go to the wall. As I said, two years have passed without any action or indication except such expressions from this Government as 'we can't give handouts to the rich and to the millers' or 'the industry has to prove its viability at the current ruling world prices'. The industry prayerfully looks at the sugar summit between the Premier and the Prime Minister for some help, some solution, some resolution. So do all of us who represent sugar seats. I have written to all parties to the summit with certain proposals which I do not consider all-inclusive but which will make a summit worthwhile if goodwill is to exist and if a bipartisan approach can be taken to the problems. The worst result will be if the summit is prepared to talk in negatives without exploring the positives. I feel that the points I have made have the support of various sectors of the industry, accountants and advisers to the industry and the people heavily involved in it. Firstly, I believe that a price support scheme for growers will achieve the priority of offsetting the $16,000 penalty mentioned by the NFF and enable farmers to keep up production. Mills will be guaranteed a full crop, and it is important to millers to maintain throughput and keep down unit costs of standing charges. I believe also that the Government, in setting a precedent in giving assistance to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd steel division, should have no reluctance to assist CSR and other millers to remain viable. The funds required would be by way of low interest loans while the industry is able to deregulate to the extent necessary to become more economic or until better overseas prices return. Secondly, the deregulation that can take place should be implemented, but the major hurdle of labour costs and penalties should also be resolved. I mean that with all the sincerity I can muster. Thirdly, I recommend that the banking and financial authorities be approached to provide moratoriums on interest and redemptions of loans to refinance present obligations where a farmer, except for such costs, is a reliable and viable farmer. The achievement of this requires the goodwill of government and financiers. After all, some farmers acting on the example of and with the encouragement of the industry, governments and advisers, went into an expansion from which level prices have since deteriorated and costs escalated. I believe that the fourth point is the most important. It requires of both governments a greater funding for rural reconstruction and a freeing of guidelines to allow for refinancing or restructuring of debts and for low interest loans to purchasers to buy all or part assignments at a price that allows a non-viable grower to get out in dignity and a purchaser to acquire a farm in confidence. I envisage a situation similar to that of 20 or 30 years ago with the reconstruction of the dairy industry in Queensland. I apply myself to the fifth point. The Minister has said that his Government is ever ready to assist in research and development that allows the industry to reduce costs and to diversify. Last month, I was able to see a series of trials within my own area on about 500 hectares of cane farming land used between rotations for soya bean and maize. I believe that this should be encouraged but that it should be encouraged with research grants and not at the cost of the private companies presently carrying out these projects. Similarly, there is a growing interest in the production of ethanol from cane or sugar but the results of any research into the viability of ethanol as an alternative cannot be proved until the Federal Government is prepared to grant an exemption from excise or charges for Australian produced ethanol. The exemption from fuel excise alone means a saving of 9.6c per litre and could be the breaking point between viability and non-viability. It is my understanding that no other nation imposes such levies on domestically produced ethanol and, if the levy could be extended for a period over which equipment and machinery for distillation purposes could be depreciated, the industry would be encouraged to get the answers to questions of cost, technology, waste disposal, the market, the capital and funding required, and the division of proceeds between miller and grower. I have been told that a 10 per cent addition to fuel in Queensland alone would absorb 12.5 per cent of the current Queensland crop. There are two steps here: Firstly, the exemption; and secondly, the final research so that if it is feasible it can go ahead. As natural oil diminishes and as Australia's requirements for external oil increase fuel prices will inflate at well above consumer price index rates, which will mean that ethanol production will become increasingly more viable. However, the time to determine its viability is right now. The Sugar Research Institute has researched the project. CSR provides power alcohol from its factory at Sarina. I understand that wonderful place, Bundaberg, distils rum, representing a yearly income of $60m in excise to the Commonwealth. The technology is known and these developments should be encouraged. On the sixth point, a proper income support scheme should be available to all farmers so they do not have to tread the tortuous path of applying for unemployment benefit or household support. The present antiquated system is heartbreaking and soul destroying for those who are now in the centre of the rural poor. The seventh point is the reintroduction of the income equalisation deposit schemes which provided an incentive through taxation and not through interest collection. I believe the best stabilisation plan is that which can be tailored to the requirements of the individual. Having re-established the machinery for effective IEDs, the need at any future time to provide industry income support should be limited. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House. Lastly, I suggest that the Prime Minister remove the current taxation anomaly under the averaging scheme whereby cane farmers, and in fact all primary producers who are in destitute situations earning less than the tax zero ceiling of $4,595, can be assessed and made to pay tax out of their meagre earnings. I appeal to the Prime Minister, with his sense of fair play and equity, to stop this obviously inequitable treatment of Australian farmers. There is no artificiality in the world situation on sugar sales. World prices are low. Our sugar stocks are at an all time high. Australia's production is highly directed to the low world sugar market. This is the reality and we have to react in Australia so as to meet those world conditions. If Australia can through such processes survive on these prices, in the future when the pendulum swings again in our favour Australia's position will be strengthened. What is needed is a combination of industry self-help, industrial deregulation and government assistance in the short term until the wheel turns. Then the industry, the workers and the Government will be the beneficiaries in the revival of this great industry. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.12) — I rise to support the amendments proposed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It is imperative that Australia maintain its prohibition on the import of sugar and certain sugar products except for some small, restricted quantities of specialty sugars. I welcome also the amendments that will enable new arrangements for the fixing of the domestic sugar price on a six-monthly basis rather than on a yearly basis. I also welcome the introduction of the new formula which will bring domestic price movements more directly into line with world price movements. It is vital that the Australian sugar industry be protected against the flood of sugar or sugar products from overseas. I think that the debate which has developed is indicative of the concern that members have for the problems we now face in the sugar industry, not only for Australia generally but specifically for Queensland. The recent price problems are disastrous and are having serious consequences for the people of Queensland. Therefore, it is not surprising that this debate should engender so much interest. I agree that we ought to consider this on a non-partisan basis. However, I find it surprising that although the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) stressed the importance of having a non-partisan debate, the Opposition has moved an amendment of criticism, of condemnation, of the Government. When the vote is finally taken, that amendment will be voted on very strict party lines. What members of the Opposition say on one hand does not seem to eventuate when action is required. Honourable members have stressed a number of propositions. I agree that there is a need for a hard, hard look at the present problems in the sugar industry. It is not surprising to me that in recent months members of the Opposition, particularly of the National Party, have played politics on this issue as much as they possibly can. I suggest that they have very, very short memories and in their typical fashion they are presenting only part of the story that surrounds this whole issue. They are presenting that part of the issue that one might say suits their particular and peculiar stance. In 1966 the Labor member for Dawson, Rex Patterson, argued for a stabilisation scheme for the sugar industry. He travelled the length and breadth of our State talking to sugar growers, millers and representatives of the State Government and putting forward a stabilisation scheme for Queensland. He widely promoted and canvassed the concept of a floor price and a guaranteed minimum price scheme. I remind honourable members that in 1966 the world price for sugar was #stg 12 per ton and, because of the downturn and the serious economic effects it was having on Queensland, Rex Patterson, originally as a candidate and then as a Labor member and finally as a Minister, argued for a rethink of the present price arrangements for this vital industry in Queensland. Rex Patterson had discussions with the Queensland Cane Growers Council and throughout the industry and argued for a similar scheme to that which exists with the dual price arrangements for domestic and export wheat. His proposals, and those of the Australian Labor Party, however, were totally opposed by the sugar industry, the National Party and the Queensland National Party Government. The sugar industry did not want any part whatsoever of a Federal floor price scheme. The industry people said quite openly that they were prepared to weather the periodic downturns, as they put it, in the sugar industry. There was no uncertainty in their statement that they wanted their industry controlled by the Queensland Government and the Cane Growers Council and, one might add, the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. In 1966-67 Rex Patterson even went to John McEwen and to Adermann. He put forward the same type of scheme, a scheme modelled on the wheat industry stabilisation scheme. He argued on a non-partisan-and I echo those words-a non-partisan basis. He was putting the scheme forward not as an ALP member, but as an expert in the industry, on the basis of what is good for the industry, for Queensland and for Australia. I am advised that John McEwen agreed that it was necessary. He supported it. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not like to educate a member of the Queensland Parliament who has come here but according to our standing rules honourable members do not refer to members or former members by their names but refer to the position they occupied at that time. The late John McEwen was Leader of the Country Party. I suggest that the honourable member should give such people their correct title rather than refer to them by name. Mr WRIGHT —It is a waste of time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept the point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia does not have the call. The honourable member for Groom has raised a point of order which is not a valid point of order, but he does make the point that reference in the House is made to members other than by their name. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will refer to the then Leader of the Country Party, but I would suggest that for the sake of readers of Hansard it would be better if we said who is the person in question. If the honourable member for Groom is ashamed of the previous leader of his own Party, let him say so. I am not because it is quite obvious that he too was concerned about the sugar industry at the time. He agreed with Rex Patterson, the member for Dawson, that something was needed. Whilst the then Leader of the Country Party, John McEwen, agreed with what Rex Patterson was saying, agreed with the proposition being put forward by the ALP, it was totally opposed by the Queensland Government. It was totally opposed by the Queensland sugar industry. One might ask why. As a matter of principle it did not want any involvement at the Federal level in the Queensland sugar industry. The Queensland Government had control for 80-odd years. I accept that because it was a singular industry for that State. It did not want involvement because it knew that this could mean periodic investigations by Federal authorities. Today it might mean an Industries Assistance Commission investigation into the cost of production on farms. It could mean periodic investigation into refining and marketing costs, milling costs and industry administration costs. We now find some nine years later that Queensland is screaming for Federal help. Another point of history is that between 1972 and 1974 the price of sugar went through the roof on the world market. The then Labor Government, through its Minister, Rex Patterson, argued that because the good times were with us this was the time for the industry to agree to set up a stabilisation fund. A fund could have been established nine years ago. It could be described, for want of a better term, as a bank for the future. There would have been many advantages for farmers. There was a tax saving advantage in that untaxed money could have been invested by the industry in the fund during the good times for those bad times. It was a principle of investing surpluses during those surplus times for the times when the world market price was against Australia. But again, it was not wanted by Queensland and it was opposed by the Queensland sugar industry. Yet today the Opposition has had the audacity to move some sort of motion of condemnation against this Government. To go a little further, I remind the House that in 1982, during the crisis after the expansion which occurred in 1980, the sugar industry went to the then Federal Government, the Liberal-National Country Party controlled Federal Government, and said that it wanted support. The then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, said that under no circumstances would the Fraser Government look at or introduce a price support scheme for sugar. The Opposition had the chance to introduce such a scheme only three years ago. If the Opposition is so concerned about it now, why did it not advocate such a scheme then? I do not recall in the Hansard record the honourable member for Dawson arguing that his Government ought to have introduced a stabilisation scheme for sugar. I do not recall any subsidy scheme for the international or domestic price of sugar or the cost to the farmer for a tonne of sugar. Members of the Opposition are strangely silent because the record shows that they said nothing at that time. Their own Government was not prepared to support the sugar industry in 1982. In 1980 there was the boom and everything was going well. Again, there was no move by the then Government to bring about some type of floor price scheme, a stabilisation investment fund, that would look after farmers in the bad times. I suggest to this assembly that when the Liberal-National Party Government was in power it did nothing to support or protect the industry. When it was in government it placed no pressure on the Queensland Government, the sugar industry or CSR Ltd to adopt a price stabilisation scheme. That may have been because the Queensland sugar industry is dominated by what we call the big three-CSR, Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd and Pioneer Sugar Mills Ltd. The National Party and the Queensland Government had been in line in bed with those millers. They have been aiding and abetting the millers. I do not just say that; the evidence is here. Recently, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was to have talks with the European Economic Community, he made an offer to the National Farmers Federation to take along a growers representative from the sugar industry. The Premier of Queensland said: 'No way; not unless there is a millers representative in lieu of or as well as'. The Queensland Government wanted miller representation. The Queensland Government has pretended to support farmers but, in fact, it has been carrying the bag for the millers. There is further evidence of this. The millers have said that the only way out of the crisis is to expand. Just this year the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd argued for an expansion in production. That approach was adopted in 1980 during the boom. Why? Price is not important to the millers. They make their money on the throughput, not on the ultimate price at which the product is sold internationally or domestically. The millers argue strongly for expansion of production because it suits their bank accounts, irrespective of the disastrous effects on farmers. What is the official position of the Queensland Government? After the Geneva conference failed to accept an international sugar agreement, the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Neil Turner, came back to Australia and said: Now that we have no such constraint- meaning the ISA- the industry can go flat out to compete for a greater share. We should add on the words 'of the world market'. The Queensland Government wanted millers representation in Geneva as well as or instead of the grower representative. It constantly echoes the official position of the millers to go flat out and expand. It is irresponsible but it is not unexpected. It is no wonder the Queensland National Party Government wants an across the board underwriting scheme, because this would mean millions upon millions of dollars going to the wealthy millers and the well-to-do farmers. But it would mean less assistance in dollar terms to the family farm. The honourable member for Dawson talked about low interest loans. The Queensland Government gets money from the Federal Government at an interest rate of 8 per cent. The latest edition of the Australian Canegrower states that the Queensland Government is lending that money through the Agricultural Bank for 13 1/2 per cent. The honourable member for Dawson had the audacity to talk about assisting Queensland's farmers. Mr Humphreys —Shame! Mr WRIGHT —It is a shame, all right. It is disgusting that members of the Opposition put up one argument when their own Party which is in government in Queensland puts up the opposite. Let the members of the National Party say why the Queensland Government is lending the money to the farmers at 13 1/2 per cent when it is getting the money from the Federal Government at an 8 per cent rate of interest. The honourable member for Dawson talked about deregulation. What hypocrisy. On the one hand he wants to ensure that the farmer and the millers get a fair return for their effort but, on the other hand, he wants to deregulate working conditions. He wants to take away the workers' award. In fact, he wants the workers to carry the burden for the wealthy farmer and the well-to-do millers. He says that we should deregulate regardless of the effect on the worker and on the economies of the small towns which depend on the industry. There may be 6,000 farmers in Queensland, but between 150,000 and 200,000 people are dependent upon that industry. The vast majority of those people are ordinary workers who spend their money in the sugar towns. I can say to honourable members that if we start changing the awards and conditions of workers we will affect the small businessman and the economies of the small sugar towns throughout Queensland. The Queensland Government has conned the people of Queensland, especially the cane farmers. The Queensland Government wants power to control the sugar industry, but it does not want the responsibility to fund it when it is in difficulty. The Queensland Government has conned people regarding its assistance. It takes the credit for all assistance that is given under the Rural Reconstruction Board. Yet in Factor A for debt reconstruction and farm buildup, 100 per cent of that money is Federal funding. In Factor B, for carry-on finance, the funding is done on a dollar for dollar basis-50 per cent Federal and 50 per cent State. The honourable member for Dawson derides and pooh-poohs household support. One hundred per cent of the money which is given to farmers again comes from the Federal Government. If one reads the newspapers in Queensland one sees that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier, and his Ministers are backing up the Queensland people through the Rural Construction Board. The vast majority of funding comes from the Federal Government. I agree with other members that the time has come to stop politicking. I put this on the record because I get fed up with the sort of nonsense that is spewed out sometimes in assemblies. The facts have been shown. Let us get back to what the issue is all about. There is a need for a support scheme that can be put forward by a joint task force. I suggest that that task force be made up of Federal, State and industry representatives. It should look at an assistance package to those in need-the needy, not the greedy. It should not look at across the board assistance, because that type of assistance is not fair. Assistance should be provided on a strictly needs basis. It should be aimed specifically at the family farmer. Also it should be based on a package. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to consider underwriting the price to the farmer of sugar cane produced. I would ask also for a moratorium on present debts. I would ask for a review of Factor B of the rural reconstruction scheme to allow no-interest loans. I would ask for controls on the Queensland Government to insist that the moneys it receives from the Federal Government at 8 per cent are re-lent to the farmers at 8 per cent. Mr Conquest —As long as the Federal Government takes some of the risks. Mr WRIGHT —I know that the honourable member will make a contribution later on. I do not want to start a brawl with him. If the honourable member for Hinkler agrees that his farmers in Bundaberg and that area should pay 13 1/2 or 14 1/2 per cent when they know the Queensland Government is getting the money for 8 per cent, he should go out on the traps and say so and we will see how long he lasts at the next election. There is a need to assist family farmers. This Government ought to look specifically at the family sized farms with a production of 3,000 to 5,000 tonnes. We need to look very hard at the cost factors facing those farmers today. There are great variations. It is not a simple matter of saying 'We will give $3 a tonne across the board' because farm production costs per tonne of cane vary from $12 a tonne to as high as $28 a tonne. The average return across the State is somewhere between $20 and $21, but it costs some farmers $21 to produce a tonne of cane and they get back only $16. One can see the downturn that has taken place. In 1980 the price of sugar was 30c per lb on the world market. Today it is 4c per lb. We have no way of competing with the EEC, which has a different type of structure based on 20 per cent export and 80 per cent domestic consumption. It is no wonder that it can subsidise its exports by some $2 billion a year, which is almost half the total annual Budget of Queensland. We cannot reach those levels. However, there is a need for some support. I suggest that a task force is the only proper, sensible and responsible way to tackle the problem. It may well be that there will have to be an underwriting scheme based on the tonnes of cane produced by the needy farmer. The support should not go to the miller. Further, there ought to be a moratorium on the present debts of farmers. There ought to be a review of the Rural Reconstruction Board and the present arrangements so that non-interest loans can be given-not low interest loans but non-interest loans; not grants but loans which are repayable in the good times. I urge the Opposition to cast aside its amendment. The Opposition says that this is a non-partisan debate; yet it is trying to criticise and put down this Government when only three years ago its own Government refused to act, when nine years ago its own Government refused to act. It did nothing in the last eight years it was in office to support the sugar industry or the people of Queensland. I believe that, having placed these matters on the record, we ought to cast aside party politics. The only way we will solve these issues is by a joint effort, and any financial proposal put forward must be matched by Queensland. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.33) —I suggest to the House that the best way to cast aside the party politics in this debate on the Sugar Agreement Bill 1985 would be to cast aside the speech which has just been made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). The honourable member paid much attention to the excellent speech of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who preceded him in this debate. What a pity the honourable member for Capricornia did not also listen to the speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), in which there was a genuine appeal for a bipartisan approach to the sugar industry and a real willingness to face the issues. The honourable member for Capricornia comes in here and talks about what the Liberal and National parties did in government in relation to the sugar industry. In another place I happened to be a member of that Government and I happened to represent a sugar constituency including both millers and producers. I happen to know a little bit about what that Government did. The honourable member for Capricornia probably recycled the speeches which he gave during his time in the State Parliament. He put forward Queensland Labor Party propaganda and added absolutely nothing helpful to the debate. Not only did he try in his speech to bring the debate to the worst possible level of party partisanship but also he did the worst possible thing that he could do for the industry: He launched a vicious attack on the sugar millers. The last thing that the sugar industry needs at the moment is people such as the honourable member for Capricornia pouring fuel on the flames and trying to create divisiveness between producer and miller. Sugar is not grown to any great extent in the honourable member's electorate. Nevertheless, he has been a member of the Queensland Parliament and his electorate is very close to another great primary industry in Queensland, namely the beef industry. If there is one lesson that the honourable member should have learned in his time in Rockhampton as a State member it is how much damage one can do to an industry by fostering divisiveness, as happened in the beef industry in its times of crisis, and how long a government can stall in coming to a genuine solution to a very serious problem by encouraging the playing off of one section of an industry against another. The honourable member would remember only too well how people tried to play off the beef producers against the meat manufacturers and the exporters in respect of beef prices in the 1970s and how long people were able to delay a real resolution of that problem by saying that the industry could not agree. Is that not exactly what the Australian Labor Party is doing at the moment through its Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)? The honourable member for Herbert tried to come to grips with some of the issues and put some of the facts before us. I do not agree with everything that the honourable member said. However, at least a member of the Government who, whilst not having many sugar farms in his electorate, nevertheless represents an electorate which is heavily dependent on the sugar industry and a lot of people directly connected with it, has shown some willingness to look at the problem and has indicated some knowledge of the industry and its needs. I say again that the last thing this industry needs is the sort of speech which has just been made by the honourable member for Capricornia, which talks about the Liberal and National parties being in bed with the sugar millers and then denigrates the idea that the sugar millers ought to be involved. Of course they should be involved. Perhaps the honourable member for Capricornia went to the two sugar industry conferences which were recently held in Brisbane-one by the millers and one by the cane growers. We saw there an industry in great distress. Having been a representative of Queensland when the beef industry went through its problems, I saw a carbon copy of that situation. An industry in distress leads to the sorts of speeches that were made then and to inflamed passions. It is distressing to anyone who cares about this great Queensland industry to see that happen. What is needed in such a situation is not the sort of rubbish that we have just heard but a consideration on behalf of the people who have a responsibility-- Mr Wright —Disprove it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order, the honourable member for Capricornia! Mrs SULLIVAN —He does not worry me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have seen enough of him for years. Mr McVeigh —You never worry about a little fox terrier. Mrs SULLIVAN —No. The people who have to make the decisions in relation to this industry have a responsibility to defuse that sort of situation and to do the best they can for all parties to make sure that the industry stays strong. Until about 30 minutes ago there was a sentiment abroad that we should have a bipartisan and wide ranging debate on the needs of the sugar industry. That is the sort of sentiment we need. What is needed at the moment is for this Government to be given a bit of a shove to get on and do some of the things it said in the last two election campaigns it was going to do for sugar. The sugar industry, of course, is not only a Queensland industry but is overwhelmingly a Queensland industry. In Australia it is a lean and superbly efficient industry, so it is not a question of rationalising the industry to make it more efficient or more profitable. It is a question of determining the factors that caused it to reach this stage of crisis, and what can be done in the short and long terms. The sugar industry needs and deserves support. The reasons it needs support are partly domestic and partly international. The honourable member for Capricornia glossed over the European Economic Community's role in this. He made a few glib remarks about the structure of the industry in the EEC. He said that members of the EEC could well afford to pay the subsidies. We cannot afford subsidies of the kind paid by the EEC. The Government ought to be expressing as strongly as it can to the EEC its determination that, whatever happens with dumping on the international sugar market, Australia will stand by a great industry. It produces efficiently. Contrary to the impression which would be gained from the previous honourable member's speech, it has not begged for assistance at every turn during the last 20 years but has needed help on only two occasions. However, the great thing about this industry and one of the reasons it deserves support is that it does not go to the Government annually or every two years saying: 'What can you do for us next? We have been thinking about it since the last time you did something. Here is something else'. That has not been done by the sugar industry. Its record can be contrasted with that of few other industries in Australia. One of the great strengths of the sugar industry and one of the reasons it has operated as well as it has through the decades is its ability essentially to manage its own affairs. It is an industry which has gone in for a degree of self-control and self-regulation. But there is a limit to how far that will work. It has worked very well for most of this century. However, at the moment the pressures on the industry are enormous. I have alluded briefly to the pressures from outside as a result of the EEC's dumping and subsidising policies. For a whole host of reasons this Government must show determination to the EEC in relation to the sugar industry. One of those reasons is what this industry contributes to Australia. All speakers in this debate have referred to the number of jobs which are directly involved in the sugar industry and the number of jobs that flow from the multiplier effect of this industry. Reference has been made to the importance of the industry to major provincial centres in Queensland in particular. I have one of them in my electorate, namely the town of Beenleigh. With the great sections of the industry located in central and northern Queensland, people overlook the fact that the industry also operates in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. There would be a widespread impact on the economies of many centres of Queensland and New South Wales if the industry were allowed to founder. It has been pointed out that the support this industry asks for now to be able to keep going in the immediate and troubled future is very small in comparison with what would have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets if the industry were allowed to decline to the point where a serious number of jobs were lost. In the case of Beenleigh in my electorate this is particularly pointed because in that area it is a very finely tuned industry. So interdependent is it that, if that industry declines at all, virtually the lot of it will go. It is a phoney tactic for the honourable member for Capricornia, in that context, to try to play off miller against producer. The producers know very well that they need the millers, just as the millers acknowledge that they need the producers. Both sides are attempting to come up with a solution. They need to be aided and advised by government, government representatives and parliamentary representatives on what are the best ways to do it. Nothing is surer than that they will fail if they allow themselves to be divided. They will be conquered in two ways. They will be conquered by a government that cops out and says 'The industry cannot make up its mind so we will wash our hands of it', and they will be conquered by those economic forces supported by subsidies. It is not a fate that this industry deserves. Both the domestic and international pressures have been very heavy. The cost of production versus returns to the grower are out of all proportion. I will quickly give a couple of figures on costs. In the last 10 years food prices in this country have risen by 292 per cent and wages by 428 per cent. The sugar industry, along with other primary industries, is feeling that pressure of declining income on the one hand, and increased wage costs on the other. I have said before and I say again that this Government must absolutely resolutely resist the pressures being put on it by the EEC. It is nonsense to talk about an industry not being able to cope with market forces, when market forces are not operating, as they are not in the case of the international sugar industry. Other Australian industries care very much about the determination that the Hawke Government will show in relation to sugar. The dairy industry is one which faces the same sorts of pressures from dumping by the EEC and will also need the resolute support of the Hawke Government to remain viable in this country. Australia needs the sugar industry. It depends on its ability to trade and to sell internationally. In 1983-84 sugar was our eighth largest export commodity and earned $619m worth of our export income. We must support our export industries against subsidised pressures from outside. As I and other speakers have said-I will not canvass all the figures again-the sugar industry is a major employer. It is economic sense for the Government to support the industry and to keep it going in a time of pressure when the alternative is unemployment, the costs of unemployment benefit and the resultant cost to the taxpayer. I hope that the Government and its members will not be tempted to say that we cannot afford it and that this money would come out of the taxpayers' dollar. In fact, this industry and its producers have been major subsidisers of the Australian consumer in past times. I remind the honourable member for Capricornia that within the last decade, during the life of the last Liberal-National Party Government, new arrangements were entered into in relation to the domestic sugar price. Previously the sugar industry had been prepared to subsidise the domestic consumer. When pressure came too heavily on international prices a rearrangement of the domestic sugar price was necessary. The Fraser Government and the sugar industry worked that out. I suggest that the honourable member for Capricornia should look at some of the literature and propaganda of that time when the sugar industry was in crisis. He would probably find the source of half his speech. He would find that people were attacking the sugar millers in those days too. I want to refer briefly to the ethanol matter. The honourable member for Dawson made reference to ethanol in his speech. In debate in the other place much was made by an Australian Democrat senator of the possibilities for ethanol in the future. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned a number of those issues. Since that debate I have received a letter from the General Secretary of the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd on the subject of ethanol. It is a very technical letter. It was circulated to all Queensland senators and probably to other honourable members. I seek leave to table the letter so that it can be a public document. Leave granted. Mrs SULLIVAN —That letter is available to honourable members who would like to look at the more technical side of ethanol and see that it is not the panacea that some might suggest it is. I think I ought to remind honourable members of the actions that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as Leader of the Australian Labor Party, and the Minister for Primary Industry, as the primary industry spokesman, said the sugar producers could look forward to. After all, it was the sugar producers who caught the cane train to Brisbane and who met with the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. They went away believing that action would be taken by a Hawke Government. In public meetings in north Queensland during the 1983 election campaign the sugar producers met the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry and believed that pressures on their industry would receive relief under a Hawke Government. The term 'sympathetic consideration' was used by both Mr Hawke and Mr Kerin. I do not bring in this matter to put down in any way the things the honourable member for Herbert has said. I hope the sympathy he has for the sugar industry is such that he can persuade the Minister and the Prime Minister to share that sympathy. In 1983 there were hopes raised of industry loans and/or an indemnity scheme. In 1984 there were hopes raised of a fixed floor price. So far there has not been much movement. I point out that in the life of this Government the steel industry has received $176m in assistance; the car industry $150m in assistance and the sugar industry $16m in assistance. It has been suggested, uncharitably, that that $16m might not have been forthcoming if there had not been twice that much forthcoming from the Queensland Government, which the honourable member for Capricornia so viciously attacked a short time ago. Not only the present State Government but also, of course, the previous Queensland governments were attacked by him. To advance the debate it is necessary that pressure be kept up by producers, and sugar millers whose livelihoods are also at stake, and by those sympathetic to the sugar industry. It is necessary that the Hawke Government be reminded of promises it has made in two election campaigns of assistance to the sugar industry which is yet to be forthcoming. I think first and foremost it is necessary that the industry and its problems be debated objectively. I hope that in the rest of this debate we will see an illumination not only of the sugar industry's problems but also of possible solutions. I hope-I trust not in vain-that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to give some better indication than the industry has had so far of action that is to the point for the benefit of this great industry. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(11.48) —I preface my remarks by indicating that I come to this place with some knowledge and some direct appreciation of the sugar region. I have lived in a sugar growing industry for the major part of my life. Apart from that, I have been directly involved in the administration of the Queensland legislation. I say at the outset that the Queensland legislation is the predominant set of patterns for the sugar industry. The only role the Federal legislation has in relation to the industry is what we are talking about in this place today, and that is the domestic agreement. For some years I was the Chairman of the Mossman Sugar Cane Prices Board and I am aware of the intricacies and the problems that now exist within that industry. The industry has had a very chequered pattern. No one in this House today has spoken about the cyclical nature of the industry, a pattern which has existed within the industry for quite a number of decades. Of course, any support, any legislation which could overcome those difficulties, rests squarely at the feet of the Queensland Government. In saying that, I do not suggest that the Federal Government should not be party to an attempt to reverse the situation existing in the sugar industry today. There is one major problem. It is very refreshing to hear today what I believe to be a new approach from the Opposition benches in relation to the sugar industry. About two years ago the relevant Minister quite unequivocally indicated-in fact, he did it in Mackay in north Queensland, in the heart of the sugar industry-that the Federal Government of the day would not give any assistance to the sugar industry, short term or otherwise. Mr Nixon made that quite clear. It was on that basis that the then shadow Minister, Mr Kerin, who, as I have often indicated in this place, is recognised as the Bob Hawke of the bush, indicated he would sympathetically look at the difficulties of the industry. Little did we realise that the industry was in such turmoil internally that it had to be reviewed. I ask those opposite: Where is the machinery for the internal review of the industry? It rests in State legislation, not in Federal legislation. On that basis this Government has set about attempting to assist the industry. We have heard figures bandied around here today. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), was the last to do so. Unfortunately for those of us here, for those who are listening or who might see those figures in the media, they are totally incorrect. I suppose the next speaker will get up and use the Queensland National Party figures as well. If there is any criticism in what I am saying now, it is directed at the Queensland National Party, because for two years all it has done is use the sugar industry as a political football. It is interesting to note that when it does so, quite strangely-I do not know whether there is any coincidence-it is just before an election, be it State or Federal. Before the 1983 Federal election the Queensland Government and the coalition Federal Government said absolutely nought about the difficulties of the sugar industry in Queensland. They did not want to know about them. But because there was a coalition government here the Queensland Government did not raise the issue at election time. When was it first raised? It was raised in October 1984 or earlier, when there was a State election, Mr Ahern, then the Minister for Primary Industries, bandied these National Party figures throughout the length and breadth of Queensland. Most of them were false. It is unfortunate that those who have spoken on the other side have not made the effort to get accurate figures of the assistance that has been forthcoming to the sugar industry in the last 24 months. The last speaker said in the vicinity of $32m has been given to the Queensland sugar industry by the Queensland Government over the last two years. That is incorrect, to the extent that the Queensland Cane Growers Council, a non-political body involved in the industry, has put out a bulletin ridiculing the Queensland Government for the misuse of improper and inaccurate figures. In effect the Queensland Government was saying, through Mr Ahern, its spokesman, that it gave $10m to the Co-operative Sugar Millers Association. In fact it did, but after it had transferred it in a phoney way from the Rural Reconstruction Board into Consolidated Revenue, and then paid it out to the co-operative sugar millers. Not only did it defraud the people of Queensland and attempt to indicate to the sugar industry that it was assistance directed from it, but also it bumped up the interest rate from the 8 per cent at which the funds were gained from the Commonwealth Government to 14.5 per cent. The Queensland Government is doing this all the time. At a Federal level we are giving the Queensland Government holiday interest payment conditions; that is, for two years we do not seek interest on moneys loaned to the Queensland Government. It does not pass that on to the sugar industry. It does not pass on the moratorium or the interest holiday. It does not even pass on the interest rate at which it gets the money; it bumps it up and fills its own coffers. I say this with no criticism of those opposite but with total and firm criticism of the Queensland Government. It has been stated here today that any approach to the problems of the sugar industry must be on a bilateral basis and I do not disagree with that, but I go one step further and say that it must be on a tripartite basis. It is not only the Opposition and the Government here which must attempt to overcome the difficulties of the industry, it is also the Queensland Government, and that is where the whole thing falls down. I shall quote once again from a document-I know the next speaker has a copy of this and he will confirm what I say-from the Queensland Cane Growers Council. As I have said before, it is not into party politics; it is there for the interest, the benefit and the welfare of the sugar industry. This document indicates what Mr Soper had to say at a meeting that he and Mr Belcher, the Secretary of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, attended with the Premier of Queensland: The QCGC-- that is the Queensland Cane Growers Council-- was anxious to discuss recent developments concerning the plight of growers with the leader of the Queensland Government. Unfortunately, that is Mr Bjelke-Petersen. The document continues: He also referred to . . . public comments by the Premier following the recent rally of canegrowers in Brisbane. It was suggested that the attached agenda-- that was to go to the Premier-- might be an appropriate means of methodically dealing with the subjects which the Council desired to discuss with the Premier. It was after discussion with the Federal Government that the Council saw fit to speak to the Queensland Government. There is a feeling within the cane growing industry in Queensland that it is a waste of time attempting to do any business to get any assistance for the future of the sugar industry from the Queensland Government. The Premier made the observation: 'nice guys always get taken for a ride and you-- that is the QCGC-- have been far too nice in your approach to the Prime Minister who has used that to advantage to get himself off the hook'. Mr Soper's report continues: The Premier elaborated on the importance of seeing problems of this magnitude against the prevailing political background and said that he would have liked to have accompanied the deputation to Messrs Hawke and Kerin. There is no doubt about the modus operandi of the Premier. He wants to make the issue political and he proved that during the campaigns of the last Federal and Queensland State elections. That is the problem, and it is not a bilateral approach that will succeed, it is a tripartite one. If the Queensland Government is not prepared to come to the party-it has the machinery of the workings of the sugar industry-all the rhetoric, the propositions and the goodwill that this place might have will go nowhere. I will talk later about the Premier because he has been the major stumbling block in any possible negotiation between the Federal and State governments to come to some arrangement for the future benefit, welfare and restructuring of the sugar industry. During my time in this place-I know I speak on behalf of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay)-I have been involved in long and tedious negotiations with our Government in putting forward propositions from the industry. It is very pleasing at times to gain the support and commendation of the industry. Mr Keith Day, the Senior Vice-President of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, gave me a public commendation as a result of the negotiations which took place after the bringing down of the Industries Assistance Commission report, at which time I fought for the retention of the embargo, notwithstanding the recommendations contained in the IAC report. I also recall very clearly discussions in relation to the lifting of dumping duties on nitrogenous fertilisers. On that occasion the honourable member for Herbert and I were involved in lengthy negotiations, at the conclusion of which Mr Belcher once again commented on the assistance and help which was forthcoming from both the honourable member for Herbert and me. Now that we have in truthful perspective-I emphasise that it is in truthful perspective; I will be interested to hear what the next speaker has to say and whether he starts bandying around the National Party's false figures again-what assistance has been given to the sugar industry during the last two years, we see that, out of the $30m that has been given to the industry, barely $1m has come from the Queensland Government. It is unfortunate that the Premier of that State has seen fit once again in the heat of an election campaign to use public funding to put out false pamphlets which he cannot substantiate. Mr Wright —Quite untrue. Mr GAYLER —Totally untrue, and I note that the honourable member for Capricornia is aware of the presence of that false document as well. Mr Everingham —He would have an objective view, too! Mr GAYLER —We will hear from the honourable member. He brings to this place a lot of experience in the sugar industry! He has overseen the great development of the sugar industry in the Northern Territory during his time as Chief Minister! I will be interested to hear what he says. He would not know how to cut a stick of cane. He would not have a clue. I think he should stick to that issue rather than having to suffer a defeat in his Party room in trying to float a new State in north Queensland. The most junior man in his Party room knocked him over in a debate on the formation of a great new State in north Queensland. Leaving that aside, I say that this Bill that we are now debating is welcomed by the industry. There is no evidence to indicate that the industry is not satisfied with it. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for his foresight in rejecting, in effect, the IAC recommendations. The rejection of those recommendations was quite unequivocal not only by the Minister for Primary Industry but also by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Bill is supported by the industry and by the Government. In relation to the amendment to the motion for the second reading which was moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), it was obvious from what occurred in the other place that the industry as a whole would be discussed during the debate on this Bill. It is merely political posturing to move such a self-centred and self-serving amendment as the one that is before us now. I make no further comment in relation to that amendment. In conclusion, I believe there is only one way in which we can come out of the end of the tunnel-if there is any light at the end of the tunnel-and that is by implementing a bilateral approach in this place. I repeat what I have so often said during my remarks today: It must be supported by a Queensland Government. No support from the Queensland Government to this date has been forthcoming, which is a sad state of affairs when Mr Soper went to see the Premier of Queensland in early 1984 to discuss with him the desperate plight of the sugar industry. That meeting took place, and that cannot be denied. That was in early 1984. In November 1984, some five months later, the Premier of Queensland told the cane growers in Cairns that he was unaware of the plight of the sugar industry. He deliberately misled the people of Queensland. I appeal today to honourable members opposite to approach the Premier of Queensland before he travels too far down that accelerating path of senility so that he will sit down and talk with the Federal Government about the problems in the industry and not merely use it as a political football. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(12.06) —The tone of this debate which has been set by members on the other side of the House has certainly been extremely uplifting, as the remarks of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) illustrated when he made accusations against the Queensland Premier! The matter of a new State for north Queensland has not been debated in my Party room. Had it been debated, one of my arguments on the topic would have been that it was another promise that the Australian Labor Party dishonoured while it was in government in Queensland many years ago. The honourable member for Leichhardt is probably aware that the second last Labor Premier of Queensland-- Mr Keogh —What has this to do with the Bill? Mr EVERINGHAM —He introduced the matter. The second last Labor Premier of Queensland, Mr Ned Hanlon, committed himself to establishing a new State in north Queensland. Of course, that is just another broken promise from the Australian Labor Party. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) said that the Queensland Government and the Queensland Premier were stumbling blocks to some sort of assistance being given to the sugar industry by the Federal Government. That is utter nonsense. The Queensland Premier has fought harder than anyone in this country to ensure the prosperity of the Queensland sugar industry. I did not see the honourable member for Herbert or the honourable member for Leichhardt at the conference of the Queensland Cane Growers Association in Brisbane 10 days or so ago. At that conference Mr Soper made very complimentary remarks about the Queensland Government. It is interesting to note that the Cane Growers Association invited not the Federal Minister for Primary Industry but the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries to open its conference. There were two votes of thanks to the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries for the assistance that that Government has given the industry in Queensland. Mr Wright —How much have they given? Mr EVERINGHAM —That Government knows the extent of the dependence of the economy of the State and the economy of this country on the sugar industry. Mr Wright —Tell us how much. Mr EVERINGHAM —The honourable member for Capricornia is still protesting. He spoke with an air of complete desperation. He harked back to Dr Rex Patterson. I have considerable admiration for the work of Dr Rex Patterson in his day. He was a fine gentleman who had many great schemes for the Northern Territory as well as for north Queensland and for the stabilisation of the sugar industry. Dr Rex Patterson retired from politics a deeply embittered man. He retired from politics such an embittered man because when the ALP came to power and Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister of this country-Gough Whitlam used Rex Patterson to gain votes in Queensland-Rex Patterson knew that he had been used. When the ALP finally achieved government it did absolutely nothing to further the northern development schemes proposed by Dr Rex Patterson. I assure honourable members that Rex Patterson has an enormous school of admirers in the Northern Territory. But we know that he was sold down the river. Mr Wright —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the honourable member's speech a member of the Opposition took a point of order and chastised me for referring to John McEwen. What is the normal ruling? Is there a consistency in rulings on this matter? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr EVERINGHAM —The former member for Dawson has an enormous school of followers in the Northern Territory. However, as I said, he retired from politics a deeply embittered man. This debate, which we hoped would have been bipartisan, has been used as an exercise by the Government to denigrate and belittle the Premier of Queensland and the efforts of the Queensland Government to assist the sugar industry. Those matters of assistance are on the record. I think I should draw the attention of honourable members on this side of the House to some of the statements of Government members in relation to the importance of the north economically to this country and the importance of the sugar industry. I certainly lend my support to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the shadow Minister for Primary Industry. Mr Wright —On a non-partisan basis. Mr EVERINGHAM —The charlatan on the other side is still shouting. I think it was in 1983 when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: North Queensland has contributed much to Australia's national wealth. I certainly heartily second those remarks. He continued. The contribution of North Queensland to Australia's wealth and stability has always been high, but it has rarely received a fair return for its contribution to the national wealth, and a proper recognition of its strategic position. National governments have never fully grasped their obligation to North Queensland. Those words are certainly true of the Hawke Government. The Prime Minister continued: The Australian Labor Party is determined that this situation must end. Those words are certainly false. The record of this Government in northern Australia is simply a record of broken promises. We are led to believe in the media that there will be more and more broken promises this year. Where does the list begin and end? I mention Townsville Airport and Darwin Airport. Mr Keogh —What about them? Mr EVERINGHAM —What has happened to the promises? The Prime Minister said: National governments have to attend to the long term prosperity of the towns and cities of North Queensland. I agree with him 100 per cent. He said that we have an obligation to the half million or so north Queenslanders and those other Australians who will come to live there in the years to come. The Prime Minister continued: We have an obligation to deal with important regions on a regional, as well as a national basis. They are fine and fair words but they are soon forgotten. Even as far back as 1982 the Australian Labor Party recognised that there were problems in the sugar industry. When in opposition the Australian Labor Party put out a very attractive document which, I am sure, lured lots of people in north Queensland to vote for the Australian Labor Party. What did it say about the Australian sugar industry in 1982? The Australian Labor Party policy stated: The Australian sugar industry faces problems on three counts: price, costs and structure. Prices have dropped due to: (1) World production being 10 per cent above demand and rising . . . (2) The EEC is dumping subsidised sugar on world markets. (3) The United States of America has imposed quotas and is encouraging local sugar production. (4) Brazil's ethanol program . . . (5) High fructose corn syrup poses a long term threat to sugar . . . (6) Costs are rising because of fuel prices . . . As any primary producer and many other around this country would say, costs are still rising due to increases in fuel prices. What has this Government done about it? Interest rates and machinery prices are on the up and up again. There are structural problems. The document then continued with a description of the Australian Labor Party policy. I understand that this policy was announced in Townsville by Senator Button. The Australian Labor Party policy of 1982, during the current crisis, stated: . . . special accommodation for an industry loan will be sympathetically examined. What has happened since 1982 by way of Federal assistance to the sugar industry? In March 1983 we saw this Government elected. Fair words to the north Queenslanders got it seats. In December 1984 the Government went to the people again without having done anything of substance whatsoever for the sugar industry. It has still not done anything for the sugar industry. All that has been done to date-as best I can ascertain-is that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet the Premier of Queensland on 1 April. I certainly hope that that meeting on All Fools Day will not mean that people in the industry will be treated like fools again by this Government, as happened after the 1983 and 1984 promises regarding assistance to the industry. As I understand the position of the Government now, as stated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) at the annual general meeting of the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd, growers and millers must first agree on a joint position. That is virtually asking for and expecting the impossible. The Minister for Primary Industry knows as well as I do that there are intrinsic differences between the interests of growers and millers. As the Queensland Cane Growers Association Chairman, Fred Soper, said: If governments continue to delay urgently needed assistance to growers, pending industry consensus, both sectors-- this is the growers and millers-- will have one major problem in common-they will both be out of business. The situation is so serious that it should not be played around with any more. We do not want to use the sugar industry as a political football. We are not using the industry as a political football but are demanding that this Government honour some of the many promises made to this industry. For example, the growers were promised a floor price scheme. In response to cane growers at Giru south of Townsville the Ministers for Primary Industry 10 days before the last election promised that the Labor Party, if re-elected, would introduce a floor price scheme. What has happened? Nothing has happened. It is estimated that it would cost $80m to assist the industry by establishing a floor price scheme to keep people on the land and to maintain jobs and regional economies. The Government is likely to have to fork our a lot more money than that in social security payments in the very near future unless it does something about that scheme very quickly. So far the Government has come up with a paltry $16m in assistance, in sharp contrast to the bounty arrangements for the steel industry which are expected to cost $52m this year alone or the $150m worth of assistance to the car industry. Of course, the difference is in votes. There are not as many votes in Queensland as there are in the more populous and industralised south. Last night in this House the honourable member for Herbert highlighted the raw deal administered to the North by this Government when he spoke of the funding allocation under the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The allocation of funding under CSIRO is simply illustrative of the way funding is not allocated to the North under this Government. The people in the sugar industry, who have contributed some $300m in export earnings to the Australian economy, are no less deserving in times of hardship than are people in the steel and car industries. They are Australians, and all the time one hears about building a more equitable Australia. It reminds me of what happened in history some 200 years ago when a mob in Paris marched out to Versailles to demand bread of King Louis and Queen Marie Antoinette. We all know the story. When the mob gathered under the Queen's balcony, she is reported as saying: 'Let them eat cake'. The Prime Minister is always talking about working to build a more equitable Australia. Just before the last election he was in Bundaberg, a centre that depends a great deal on the sugar industry and an area on which the downturn has had a serious effect. The people and farmers in Bundaberg have been as resourceful as they can and have diversified as much as they can. When the Prime Minister was asked 'What assistance are you going to give us here in Bundaberg?' his reply-his contribution to building a more equitable Australia-was: 'Let them grow vegetables'. I support the amendment. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(12.22) —I begin by complimenting the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the only Labor member who spoke in this debate in a positive and constructive fashion. I was wholly disappointed with the comments of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and also the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) on this important piece of legislation, the Sugar Agreement Bill 1985. The honourable member for Leichhardt seemed to be preoccupied with casting personal aspersions against the Premier of Queensland and in distorting the true situation in the sugar industry. Let me take up his assertion concerning the marketing arrangements that prevail, or do not prevail, in the sugar industry. Perhaps the honourable member feels somewhat guilty that the Labor Government, a government of which he is part, has dismantled the only support scheme that was available to the sugar industry. It will be recalled that the previous coalition Government introduced the income equalisation deposit scheme-a scheme that was of considerable benefit to the sugar industry, an industry with a record of variable incomes. But what has this Government done? It has totally dismantled that scheme and made it useless and ineffective for this industry. The honourable member for Leichhardt said that the former coalition Government had not done anything to introduce a marketing scheme for the industry. The coalition Government did nothing because the industry made no request for anything to be done. The industry is basically self-reliant and by a process of continual adjustment it had adjusted to changing market and economic circumstances. The coalition does not bring in socialist-oriented philosophies to socialise an industry at a whim. We would introduce a marketing scheme only with the agreement of the industry. I emphasise that when we were in government the industry made no such request. The matter before the House is most important and needs a constructive approach. The problem in the sugar industry is not of its own making but originates overseas in the European Economic Community. It is the direct result of the common agricultural policy and the policy of the European Common Market in dumping excessive sugar production on world markets, distorting those markets and depressing the prices. It must be remembered that the Australian industry is efficient and significant. It involves some 6,600 cane growers between Grafton and Cairns, and produces some 3 million tonnes of raw sugar a year. That makes Australia the fourth largest sugar producer in the world. The industry employs 20,000 people directly and 100,000 people indirectly, and some 200,000 people depend on the industry. In the past decade the industry has earned 4.6 per cent of Australia's export income. If one examines Australia's recent balance of payments, it will be seen how important is export income to this country. The industry has achieved all this in what in recent years has been a hostile economic environment-particularly in the past two years in which the industry has faced high and rising costs, and has had to confront regulated labour markets and high and exorbitant costs as a result of tariffs and quotas. The present Government, in its short term in office-which will not be for much longer, I am sure-has acted to exacerbate the problems of this industry by further entrenching the privileged positions of the labour unions, by increasing costs, by indexing labour rates, and by providing further assistance to secondary industry by way of tariffs and quotas, which add indirectly to the costs of primary industry, export industries and the sugar industry. The sugar industry of Australia has supported our consumers in the period between 1974-75 and 1981-82 by providing sugar to the domestic market at below world prices. I am told that in real terms the effective benefit of that subsidy to Australian consumers has been some $408m. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics recognises the industry's difficulties and sees no prospect of an immediate increase in prices available to the sugar industry in the next couple of years, but it believes this is a short term problem. It is important in terms of the size and significance of this industry to the Australian economy that the Government recognise that we cannot afford to close down the industry. One is not talking merely of growing cane in eastern Australia, but one is dealing with people. One is talking of 6,600 cane farmers and their families, as well as the mill workers and their families. What are the consequences of closing down sugar towns? In the part of Australia that I come from we are not totally dependent on the sugar industry, but it is a very significant industry. If the mill at Condong is to be closed down, the impact on the town of Murwillumbah will be great. It is true that the area has a tourist industry, the cattle industry and other industries to fall back on, but I believe that if that mill were to be closed it would knock 25 per cent off the economic activity of Murwillumbah. Other towns, such as Ballina and Grafton, would be similarly affected. In Queensland the situation is far worse. There are towns such as Tully which are virtually totally dependent on the sugar industry. It is all very well for the Government to react when the steel industry and the steel workers complain about their problems when they come here to Canberra and protest-Wollongong is close to Canberra and those workers can afford to get here-but the Queensland sugar farmers cannot afford to travel down here and are not of a mind to come here and protest violently. They believe the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he says that this Government governs for all Australia. They are expecting him to honour his commitments made in two election campaigns. Perhaps that is the reason why the honourable member for Capricornia and the honourable member for Leichhardt have reacted so strongly on a personal level in this debate. The plain fact is that during the 1983 election campaign the then shadow Minister and now Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that a Labor government would provide an underwriting scheme or loan assistance to the sugar industry. That was said in March 1983. Since then we have had another election campaign and in the course of that campaign in 1984 the Prime Minister said that the industry would benefit from 'meaningful' assistance. I think that word should be redefined to be meaningless in terms of the present Government, because it has done nothing. The honourable member for Herbert recognises the need for immediate action. I agree with many of his comments, but I am concerned that the Government is not moving fast enough to provide the assistance required by the industry. He suggested that an inquiry was now taking place that would report by 1986. That is too far away for my neighbours. My neighbours are cane farmers, I live in a sugar-producing area, and in 1986 they will be bankrupt-there will be mortgagee in possession sales in my area and in Queensland. The consequences of that and the social disruption will be massive. We need more immediate action, a rational approach and short term help. In the past rural industries in Australia have encountered short term market and economic problems. In the past the wool industry has suffered. I can remember days when sheep were referred to as ground lice and all sorts of people-perhaps they were members of the Australian Labor Party-were suggesting that the industry be phased out and eliminated. The coalition Government provided assistance and we now have a strong, viable wool industry earning export dollars for this country. Mr Hunt —With short term assistance. Mr BLUNT —With short term assistance. In 1974 there was a crisis in the cattle industry. Again, the coalition Government came to the assistance of that industry and we now have a strong and viable beef industry earning export income for Australia. The sugar industry has the potential to come out of this crisis and earn important export industry income once again for Australia. Heaven only knows we need it because we are rapidly losing our international competitiveness under the policies of this Government. What the issue really comes down is that this Government must honour its undertaking to provide assistance to the sugar industry. Just as the Government has provided assistance to the steel industry and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and just as it has provided assistance to the car industry, it must provide assistance not only to the sugar industry but also to the people involved in it. Let us be realistic about the sugar industry. Obviously world circumstances are changing, economic pressures are changing, and there will be a need for adjustment in the sugar industry. I do not deny that. I am sure that the honourable member for Herbert also recognises that need, as do my colleagues on my side of the House. Some people who are currently involved in the sugar industry will not continue in that industry and there will be a need to assist them and their families to leave it with dignity and to ensure that what capital can be rescued from the industry will be available for reinvestment and will be ploughed back into Australia for the benefit of Australia and those individuals. The Government must also provide assistance for those people who are stronger and have the resources and the capital behind them to continue in the industry. This Government must face up to the need to address this problem constructively in two ways: It must help people who need help to leave the industry and it must help those who can stay in the industry to do so for the long term, and this has to be done. The Government has proposed that there be a sugar summit. A previous speaker said that it will be held on April Fools Day. I certainly hope that the Government will go out of its way to ensure that there is nothing foolish in its approach to the sugar industry and that those involved in the sugar industry of this country are not treated as fools. The importance of the industry must be recognised. The separate needs of the cane growing and milling industries must be recognised. The Government must come up with a proposal to assist the industry which will provide it with a long term future and which will also provide immediate assistance for the families affected by its problems. I believe that what this industry needs is a commitment from the Government to provide a guaranteed price, a minimum average price, for cane based on $240 per tonne for raw sugar. That price would allow cane growers currently in the industry who have a commitment to remain in the industry to stay there. It will not allow them to buy new harvesters. It will not allow them to replace any of their current capital equipment, but it will keep them in the industry and it will provide a basic level of income for their families. It will allow them to keep their children at school. People do not recognise the consequences which flow from a sugar industry in crisis. I will take the case of a typical sugar farm, which is a family farm, the basis of Australian agriculture. It generally consists of a father, mother and children. When the industry is in crisis, what happens? The family must earn extra income. There is a choice. Can the parents afford to keep their children at school or will they have to take them out of school and somehow try to find work for them? Heaven only knows where they will find it. Unemployment in most of the cane growing areas throughout Australia is high enough. It would be extremely difficult to put teenage children, children who could continue at school, on to the labour market. If these children are to find gainful employment they will probably have to leave the community in which they have grown up and go to another place to earn income and perhaps remit their income to their families. We could have the situation where a cane farmer feels that his farm is no longer viable and he has to find other employment. Perhaps a wife will have to find work. She may have to go and work in a hospital, take domestic work, work as a cleaner or in a bar or do something else. What sort of impact would that have on a family with young children? These are the real problems of the sugar industry. They are not the statistical problems; they are the human problems that have to be addressed by this Government. The Government's reaction to these problems has to be sympathetic. There was a sympathetic response to the human problems of the steel industry. There was a sympathetic response to the human problems of the car industry. I am still waiting for a sympathetic response to the human problems of the sugar industry. We had promises in 1983 and in 1984. We will have D Day on 1 April, and it will be interesting to see what this Government will do. It must have a positive approach. In addition to providing some sort of guaranteed level of income for farmers, this Government needs to contribute additional funding for research because, as I have said, there will be adjustments in the sugar industry. Maybe we will have to look at producing sugar more efficiently. We are efficient now. We have doubled our productivity in the past 60 years but it can probably be further increased. Maybe we will have to find alternative crops or alternative land uses for the coastal alluvial plains. This will not be done without support from this Government and it will not be done without appropriate scientific research. We have to look at providing reconstruction assistance for the sugar industry to ensure that those people who remain in it have the financial backing to restructure their debts and acquire the extra acreages that will probably be needed to make sure that their cost of production remains low and world competitive. We have to make sure that there is a sympathetic approach to the provision of social welfare for those who are leaving the industry. This Government would be well advised to look at how assistance is provided. Unemployment benefit should be provided for people who are leaving the industry and household support should be provided for people in the industry who are currently restructuring and readjusting. I cannot stress too strongly the need for immediate action. We have been waiting since March 1983. The farms of neighbours living at either side of me, day by day, are increasingly showing the consequences of a depressed economic situation and earn virtually nil income. I see also the consequences this will have for their children. It is sad that a wife and mother has to leave three-year-old and four-year-old children in care and go out to find work because her husband still has to maintain the farm and keep the drains clear. We need a reaction from this Government and a statement that it will provide the assistance required to ensure that this industry continues into the future, restructured although it may have to be, that it continues to earn export income for Australia and that it continues to offer employment and to act as an economic engine for the coastal areas of north-eastern Australia. The Government must also provide assistance for those people who will not be able to continue in the sugar industry. One final matter I must address is the capacity of this industry to help itself. In far northern New South Wales there are three co-operative sugar mills. They were taken over some years ago by the industry when CSR Ltd decided that it would not continue in that part of the world. The industry got together on a co-operative basis and ensured that those mills and the sugar industry in far northern New South Wales would continue. The industry has helped itself. It has contributed to its own viability and future. It is not too much to ask this Government to take the industry's problems seriously and act immediately. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(12.38) —I join previous speakers from this side of the House in congratulating the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) for the call to his Government to issue some measure of support to the ailing sugar industry. I trust that he will have some influence on other members of the Government. Unfortunately, there is not much cane grown in Bourke Street or Pitt Street. I also agree with the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) that there was no need for the hysterical contribution, or should I say non-contribution, to this debate of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). His confrontationist style contributed to his demise in Queensland politics before his transfer to this sphere of politics, and he still has not learnt. The honourable member for Capricornia stated that the Queensland Government charges a margin of interest in excess of the interest rate levied by the Federal Government in funds advanced to that State. I remind the honourable member for Capricornia and this House that all funds must be repaid in full to the Federal Government, and with interest. It is the State Government alone which must carry the total risk at a time when this debate suggests that those risks are exceedingly high. Let the Federal Government advance its funds to the State and take 50 per cent of the risk. Then the Queensland Government could advance those funds on equal interest rates. This Bill seeks a continuance of the prohibition on the import of sugar and certain sugar products into Australia and introduces a new formula to bring domestic price movements more directly in line with world prices. The new formula provides for the maximum price for bulk refined sugar of manufacturers grade to be adjusted every six months. The formula takes into consideration the consumer price index and the world market price for sugar. It is a recognition by the Government that the Australian sugar consumers have received a net transfer of payments from the sugar industry over the past decade in excess of $400 million. Unlike the position in the European community, the price of sugar to consumers in Australia cannot be used to subsidise the export price. Whereas in Australia the home consumption of sugar is less than 25 per cent of total production and the balance is available for export, the European percentages are almost the reverse. This Bill will, to some extent, introduce a mechanism to redress the past imbalance of home consumption prices which were well below world market prices for so many years. Unfortunately, no measure is contained in this Bill to offer major support to the ailing cane sugar industry and the Government continues to ignore the plight of that industry. This Labor Government has displayed an almost arrogant animosity to the primary industries in Australia and is seemingly prepared to see the sugar industry decimated through an adherence to a world parity pricing philosophy which is unreasonable, unsound and ill-conceived-a trilogy which is demoralising to the growers and threatens the livelihood of so many families. It is not only the sugar growers and millers who in the end will have to bear the full brunt of this Government's refusal to introduce a meaningful support price for the industry. If the members of this Government will not consider the plight of the growers themselves, they should in all conscience consider the peril inherent in its policies to the employees dependent on the industry. It has been estimated by various agencies that a minimum of 100,000 and up to 200,000 employees could be affected in addition to the 6,600 producers and the 20,000 people directly employed in the sugar industry. In the Hinkler electorate the livelihood and aspirations of almost 50,000 of my constituents hinge on the viability of the sugar cane industry. I am concerned for their future. Already the unemployment levels are at least twice the national average, and the position is worsening daily. Like Henry Lawson, although our basic beliefs could be considered to be opposing, my heart aches too for the owners of those sad faces in the street-the demoralised victims of the sugar recession. Daily I am confronted by the problems facing retrenched constituents in the Hinkler electorate, and the subsequent loss of human dignity, in what seems to them an unfeeling response by this Government to the situation. These people are mostly honest, previously hard-working family men who now cannot meet the family responsibilities. They too are depressed and feel they have reached the end of the road. This should not be allowed to happen. They might be on a roundabout with all exit lanes closed but the Government has the capacity to reopen the route through compassionate measures designed to support the sugar industry. I call on the Government to heed the plea of growers, millers and the work force for an interim support plan. Not to do so now will be a folly of major dimension. For this Government not to respond in the meaningful way will forever be to the shame of the Australian Labor Party which in the beginning was born from the workers in primary production under that tree of knowledge at Longreach. The greater number of workers in the sugar industry are members of the Australian Workers Union. I call on that union and other unions, whose members inevitably will be affected, to put the well being of their members before any misguided party political subjugation of their duty to members. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Hinkler will have the opportunity to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr N. A. BROWN —I ask the Attorney-General a question concerning the authentication of the Age New South Wales Police tapes and the granting of indemnities to the police officers involved in the making of the tapes to resolve the dilemma caused by conflicting advice given to him by Mr Temby and Mr Justice Stewart. I ask the Attorney-General: Is not the real cause of his dilemma the fact that the transcripts of the tapes reveal that on 9 February 1980, at the time of investigations into the alleged Cessna-Milner drug case conspiracy, and at the time of other alleged criminal activities revealed by the tapes, he had a meeting, albeit an innocent one, with one of the alleged principal conspirators? Is not this the classic case of the appearance of a conflict of interest from which an Attorney-General should completely divorce himself? Will the Attorney-General therefore undertake not to make decisions on this matter personally, but request the Solicitor-General or some other independent officer to exercise the discretion to avoid even the suggestion of a conflict of interest? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is no conflict of interest on my part. I acknowledge that Morgan Ryan saw me on a number of occasions, as he did the former honourable member for Phillip, Mr Birney, who was a member of the honourable gentleman's government at the time. Mr Tuckey —That doesn't change anything. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That does not change anything, but the reason for the interview related to whether a no bill should be filed. The honourable gentleman was the Attorney-General at the time and would know of representations made in that respect. I know nothing about the case in question to which he now refers. It is significant that at the time which the honourable gentleman mentions, 1980, the Fraser Government was in office. It is significant that what are alleged to be tapes and transcripts of tapes were all made between 1976 and 1981. It is also significant that they were made as a result of Australian Federal Police talking to State police, getting evidence of interception and, in fact, paying an informant money. All those matters are now matters of record as a result of Mr Temby's report. It certainly highlights the fact that the honourable gentleman, if not himself, certainly through his Attorney in the same Cabinet, would have been aware of a lot of information that was made available to the Federal Police at that time. If he now shakes his head and indicates that he does not know, I am astounded, because the evidence is very clear. It was known between 1976 and 1981. It was made clear to Sir Colin Woods, the Commissioner of Police. It was made clear to Inspector Lamb. It was known that the informant was called Hawthorn and that he was paid money for this interception. The difficulty we now have is that the New South Wales Police, if you look at Federal Police evidence, obviously committed a breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. There were no prosecutions lodged. Perhaps there was insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. The difficulty that the honourable gentleman is raising relates to matters solely within his own period of office, basically within his own period and it relates to information- Mr Sinclair —It is for you to exercise the discretion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a question of discretion. I am in this position-- Mr N. A. Brown —I am asking you about 1980. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and the honourable gentleman was in office at the time. I am telling you about 1980. I am telling you about the illegal interceptions-- Mr Hodgman —He wasn't even a Minister in 1980. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I meant when the Fraser Government was in office. Is that a problem? Do not tell me that honourable members did not know that Senator Durack was the Attorney-General at the time. How stupid can they get? One day they might make a statement as to what authority they had to use public money to pay an informant knowing he was breaching a Federal law. They might think about that. The problem that I now face relates to a conflict of advice, not to a conflict of interest. Mr N. A. Brown —It must if you met the man yourself. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I met the man, the same as anybody else would have met the man. Mr N. A. Brown —In 1980? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would not admit to 1980. The issue we are talking about is the honourable member's knowledge and the fact that the man-- Mr Tuckey —But we are talking about you. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The period we are talking about relates to a period when he was in office. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, if you want to give advice, tell him to sit down. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Perhaps honourable members opposite would prefer that I sat down. The dilemma relates to the fact that 31 New South Wales police apparently breached the Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Therefore, that renders them liable to punitive action. Not only that, they passed the information on to Federal Police, and that certainly relates to the question. I see no reason why those New South Wales police officers cannot do their duty and just tell the truth. That is all they have to do. They are not above the law. Nobody can give an exemption, particularly to law enforcement officers, on the basis of their having licence to do what they like, even though they break the law. The issue for them is very clear. They should do what they were asked to do by Mr Justice Stewart and tell him the facts. When will they do it? Mr Temby, QC, advises me that they are not entitled to an indemnity, and he is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The honourable gentleman talks about conflict of interest. Those officers are not entitled to indemnity merely because they are police. In fact, they are not entitled to indemnity, particularly because they are police. They have a duty to disclose any offence within their knowledge. They had a duty to do something about it when they were aware of it between 1976 and 1981 and on that basis, if they do their duty, there will be no problems with which the honourable gentleman is now so concerned. The previous Government, of which the honourable member was a member, had all this knowledge at the time and did nothing about it. Mr Sinclair —But you have a question before you now. It has nothing to do with that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have not desisted from trying to do my duty, which is to suggest again to the New South Wales police that they revise their attitude that they want an indemnity and that they give all the information to Mr Justice Stewart. Whether they will be prosecuted is another matter. The matter Mr Justice Stewart is investigating is their knowledge of crime and criminal activities arising from an alleged transcript and tapes. It is another matter of record, of course, that copies of the tapes and transcripts were also within the possession of the Liberal member for Northcott. He said he had received them from the New South Wales Liberal Party headquarters. Mr CHARLES —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. I refer the Minister to the B-MAC transmission system. Will the Minister explain the likely benefits of the Government's decision to use the new B-MAC transmission system in association with Australia's new telecommunications satellites? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question. In September 1984, following an extensive review of transmission systems, it was decided to adopt the B-MAC system to deliver Australian Broadcasting Corporation television and radio services via the satellite. Mr Beale —Untested anywhere in the world. Mr DUFFY —I note the interjection from the learned gentleman that it is an untested system. For the first time in Australia a lead may be given in this country in this area of technology. If he prefers to sit back and wait and have an outdated technology, that is a matter for him, but that is not something this Government will do. The decision was taken in the knowledge that the multiplexed analogue component forms of transmission systems were at the forefront of emerging technology. I am aware of the fact that no MAC system has been employed commercially anywhere in the world. However, on the advice that I have, the form of MAC technology would be employed in future systems of satellite delivered television because of the clear advantages that the technology has over conventional systems. In order that honourable members opposite and particularly the honourable member who interjected earlier can understand it, on the advice received, the B-MAC variant, as the transmission standard for ABC television, has considerable advantages. Some of those are its ability to deliver a very high quality television signal, even under adverse conditions, along with six digital audio channels plus a data channel. It will also allow, as part of the ABC's Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service, the provision of a range of radio services, ABC stereo radio services and two other mono ABC radio services which would not have been available with other systems. Mr Beale —You have been conned by the bureaucrats. Mr DUFFY —I would rather take advice from bureaucrats in my Department than from the honourable member. There is the capability to offer teletext services, on-screen emergency warnings, educational and other services by the use of the data channel. Further, it is expected that commercial radio and television will follow this lead in Australia and will also employ B-MAC. Furthermore, there are excellent prospects that it will be employed in many other countries. In conclusion, it is worth noting that with B-MAC Australia will have one of the most technologically sophisticated broadcasting systems in the world. The result will be better television and radio facilities for all Australians, something that has been provided by this Government and something which was not, in fact, provided during the term of the previous Government, when the area of communications was in a state of paralysis for four years. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of the Foreign Minister's declassification yesterday of Office of National Assessments and Joint Intelligence Organisation intelligence assessments relating to Cambodia, will he now authorise declassification of the assessment provided to his Government by the ONA National Assessments Board that a comprehensive test ban would be unverifiable, could destabilise deterrence and would be of particular disadvantage to the West? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the outcome of his recent discussions in the United States of America on the implications of the 1985 farm Bill and particularly its potential impact on Australia's primary producers? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I would probably need to make a statement to do justice to the depth of the discussions. The purpose of my visit to the United States in particular and to Canada was to identify Australia's position on the more general questions of trade in agricultural products. It was consistent with the position taken by the Prime Minister, particularly in Brussels and also in the United States leading up to a possible further round of multilateral trade negotiations. Australia is of the view-those on both sides of the House are of the view-that it wants trade to be open, multilateral and without excessive subsidisation, particularly as far as agricultural products are concerned. The Administration's farm Bills are very important Bills for Australia's primary producers. The commodity about which I expressed most concern was wheat. While I was in the United States I saw Secretary Block of the Department of Agriculture, Ambassador Brock of Trade, Mr Wolfowitz of State, as well as a range of congressmen, senators and industry leaders. At present the United States has a complicated system of farm support. I will not go through all the details of that. Even with its far greater levels of support than our primary producers have, there is a chronic farm credit situation in the United States at present and to some extent that is confusing the thoughts of people in the Congress on the basic logic of the United States farm Bills. They propose tracking down mechanisms with respect particularly to the loan rate, the target price and the deficiency payment system therein. It would be in Australia's interests, by and large, if the United States pursued the Administration's package of Bills. However, the Congress has to examine those Bills. In the first instance it is quite obvious that, no matter how firm the Administration is with respect to its policies-particular people in the Administration such as Mr Regan and Mr Stockman-the Senate in particular in the United States Congress will debate those Bills at great length. Proposals have been put forward by Senator Helms, who chairs the powerful agricultural committee. It is pretty obvious that many other Bills will be put up. For example, we are sure that one will come from Senator Boschwitz and another one from Senator Zorinsky. There will be a lot of discussion. The position which we particularly wished to identify was that the worst situation from Australia's point of view would be if the loan rate were dropped, thereby effectively dropping the price of wheat on the world markets. At the same time, a compromise- Mr Tuckey —Make a statement. This is disgraceful. Mr KERIN —Honourable members opposite do not seem to want to listen to this. I would have thought that the heel clickers from the National Party would have been interested in agriculture. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would have thought that the Minister would be more interested in the assets test. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell knows that warnings have been given about such points of order. Mr KERIN —Perhaps I should start again in explaining the proposal of the United States. Mr SPEAKER —I hope that the Minister will not start again but will start to wind up his answer. Mr KERIN —The position we wished particularly to indicate was that if we had a situation where the United States farm Bills, as a result of compromise and debate, came up with a lower loan rate and at the same time the trade title of the Bill were built up, it would have a disastrous effect on Australia's wheat growers. We made that point comprehensively in the United States and also in Canada. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and follows the question asked of him and the answer given by him just a moment ago. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the national security principle which leads him to permit the release by the Foreign Minister of hard Joint Intelligence Organisation and Office of National Assessments intelligence on troop movements and border incursions while permitting him-that is, the Prime Minister-to refuse to advise the House of the considered judgments of the nation's key intelligence body on a matter central, not to the protection of agents or sources, but to an informed public debate on nuclear disarmament? Mr HAWKE —As I think it should have been made clear to the House yesterday-I think everyone understood it-I have complete confidence in the competence, integrity and judgment of the Foreign Minister in my Government. I saw nothing in the exercise of judgment by the Foreign Minister yesterday in this area which required any adverse comment from me. Indeed, it was an excellent part of an excellent speech. That being said, I therefore draw no inference at all from what the Foreign Minister did yesterday, I believe appropriately as to why I should answer in the affirmative to this question today. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I ask the Prime Minister: In view of some isolated claims that the economic recovery is stalling, can he assure the House that the Government will achieve the goal set before the 1983 election of achieving 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of office? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Newcastle for his question. I can say that not only are we still committed to the goal of achieving 500,000 new jobs in our first three years of office but also the prospects of achieving that target are excellent. I remind all members of the House of the cynicism, the scepticism and the anti-Australianism of the Opposition when we said that. I know it is part of the diet of members of the Opposition which they do not like, but let me feed them some facts. So far this financial year 110,000 new jobs have been created. In our term of office since the Summit of April 1983 a total of 360,000 new jobs have been created. So you can see, Mr Speaker, that we are very much ahead of our target. Of course, that increase in the number of jobs has been associated with a significant fall in the level of unemployment-from over 10 per cent when we came to office to 8.3 per cent now. Very importantly, as all people on this side of the House, who are really concerned with the problem of unemployment, will particularly applaud, there has been a drop of four percentage points in the level of youth unemployment. It is very instructive, I would suggest, to compare the creation of those 360,000 new jobs under this Government with the record of honourable members opposite when they were in office. May I rhetorically ask the question: How many new jobs does one think they created in over seven years in office? The answer is 340,000. In other words, in less than two years in office we have created 360,000 new jobs and in over seven years their miserable performance was 340,000. Honourable members opposite attempted to justify their economic policies by saying that what they were about was fighting inflation first. It was through fighting inflation first that they were going to create jobs. Were they not great performers in the area of inflation! When they left office the level of inflation was over 11 per cent. This Government has halved the rate of inflation. It is down to 5 per cent from what it was under them. It was double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rate and we have brought it down to the OECD rate. That indicates the performance of these self-styled economic managers. Finally, if we are talking about failures in the area of economic management, I must comment on the performance of their colleagues in Queensland, because one simply cannot talk about economic failures in this country without talking about Queensland. The statistics that I am relying on to show the great performance of this Australian Government show that Queensland has easily the highest level of unemployment of any of the States of Australia. In other words, at 11.3 per cent it is a clear two percentage points above the Australian average. Queensland is the only State that has had a fall in the level of employment over the past year. That is an indication of the performance of the Queensland Government. It just goes to show that it is about time the Government of Queensland faced up to the task of proper economic management instead of going in for all the grandstanding that it is engaging in at the moment. It is becoming easier and easier to understand that the Queensland Government is engaging in massive counterproductive industrial confrontationism to divert attention from the indisputable and increasingly recognised fact that Queensland is easily the worst managed State in Australia. Mr RUDDOCK —I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a speech he gave in December 1983 on human rights and foreign relations in which he said: Human rights will make a difference. It must always be on the agenda of our relations with other states. Did the Minister in his discussions with the Vietnamese Prime Minister raise the matter of the many thousands of Vietnamese who are held against their will in concentration and re-education camps in Vietnam? If not, why not? If so, can he inform the House of the response of the Vietnamese Prime Minister? Mr Hodgman —Ho Chi Minh Hayden. Mr HAYDEN —Whenever the honourable member for Denison speaks a feeling of emulsion sweeps over me. Yes, I did raise the matter. I did put certain proposals to the Vietnamese about the release of people in re-education camps and about those people being allowed to go to the West, including the United States of America. There has been discussion about this matter between representatives of this country and the United States. There has also been discussion between a representative of the United States and me on it. Our representations were unsuccessful. We have raised it before; we will raise the matter again. More broadly than that, I raised a fairly long list of human rights cases when Mr Thach was here. I received a response some time ago. It did not cover everyone about whom we had addressed a concern. We raised those additional cases. We put the matter on the agenda and we keep it there. Mr HUMPHREYS —Can the Special Minister of State comment on what the Government sees as the role of the newly-established Standing Committee on Procedure? Mr SPEAKER —There is a little doubt about this question as it asks the Minister to comment, but I call the Special Minister of State. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not within the Minister's responsibility to determine the role of a committee of this Parliament. It is for the Parliament to determine and not for any individual Minister. I would suggest that the question is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the Leader of the National Party that the Minister, as the Leader of the House, was responsible for the introduction of the motion to set up the committee. I believe that this matter comes within his responsibility as Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —The Government sees an enormously important role for the Procedure Committee which has just been established. We hope that the infusion of new blood into the Parliament will see more opportunity for changes to some rather archaic traditions which have been enshrined in the procedures of the Parliament. Obviously, some back bench members will see the rights of individual parliamentarians being preserved and enhanced by the establishment of the Procedure Committee. Of course, that will be uppermost in the minds of the people who will serve on the Procedure Committee, all of whom will be back benchers. Obviously there will be some emphasis on the role of and the time available to private members in the Parliament in future. Hopefully, in looking at the Standing Orders and the other procedures and functions of the Parliament, the Procedure Committee will also take into account the fact that the Executive of the Government has an enormously important task to perform in the conduct of government in this country and will understand the Executive's work load in carrying out the business of government. The Committee may also take the opportunity to look again at the legislation committees which have been experimented with in this House previously and not continued. It may well be that we can facilitate the business of this chamber by the establishment of legislation committees running parallel with meetings of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee could also look at the handling of committee reports. It could look at the calling of quorums, which has caused both this Government and previous governments some serious embarrassment-not embarrassment in terms of having to turn up with the numbers but in terms of the business which is being carried out not only by members of the back bench but also by members of both front benches at the time a quorum is called. Most people who visit the Parliament and hold discussions with honourable members from either side of the House do not understand why, all of a sudden, they find themselves sitting alone in a committee room while we rush off to make up the numbers in the House at any given time when the Parliament is sitting. Australia is also in a unique position in that the Parliament has institutionalised the working of Ministers from Parliament House. This is not a common practice in Western democracies. I do not know that it is altogether a good thing. However, we have done it in this House and obviously we are going to do it in the next one because that is the way in which we have designed the building. One would have thought that perhaps we should have given more consideration to Ministers working in their departments and then, perhaps, the procedures of the Parliament- Mr Howard —You should not have been so keen on the new Parliament House. Mr YOUNG —It was not us; it was big Mal. That was not a good government; we got that right from the horse's mouth. The honourable member for Menzies told us what a rotten Government the Fraser Government was. The procedures of this Parliament and the way in which Parliament is observed are of enormous importance and consequence not only to the Government, obviously, but to every member and to all political parties. It is to be hoped that whatever changes are made are not only for the benefit of the efficiency of this Parliament but also for the people who perhaps observe the Parliament so that they can say that we are doing things with a fair bit of common sense. Of course, there are occasions when the Parliament brings not only the parliamentarians but also the system into disrepute. We have seen that. Hopefully, the Procedure Committee will have observed what has happened in Queensland in the last 24 hours. According to a Brisbane newspaper today, last night the Queensland Parliament was passing legislation quicker than the Minister could read it. Properly, that has been condemned by everybody in Queensland, as it ought to have been condemned. This morning an unprecedented standard was reached in the Queensland Parliament when the Government refused to allow a motion of no confidence in the Speaker to be debated. That has never occurred in this Parliament on a number of occasions when substantive no confidence motions have been moved on the Speaker. I can see that it will never happen with you, Mr Speaker. Such a motion has been moved in the past in this Parliament and the right to debate it has never been refused. But in Queensland this morning the Parliament was refused the right to debate the motion of no confidence in the Speaker. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 relates to relevance. The Minister is answering a question relating to the Federal parliamentary Procedure Committee. He quite obviously has an obligation to do that. If the Prime Minister wants to do it-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to conclude his answer. Mr YOUNG —It would be highly unusual for a committee of this Parliament looking at the procedures of this Parliament not to observe the procedures of other parliaments in both this country and other countries. Of course it is relevant. Let us hope that the Procedure Committee will not tell us that what is done in Queensland in a so-called parliamentary democracy ought to be adopted by this Parliament. If that is what Opposition members are talking about, they are not talking about enhancing the rights of the private member; they are talking about destroying them completely. It is to be hoped that the enormous importance that has been placed on the establishment of the Procedure Committee will be confirmed in a very short period when it brings down its first report. I sincerely hope that all members have an open mind as to the recommendations it makes about the way in which we should facilitate the business of this chamber. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to the honourable gentleman's claim made recently that the pre-election commitments of the Prime Minister and him that interest rates would fall in 1985-which produced the sort of headlines I have here-related to the post-tax rundown period in 1985. I therefore ask the honourable gentleman whether he is now predicting that once the current rundown period has been completed housing and other interest rates will fall below the levels which obtained at the last election. If not, what prediction is he now making? Mr KEATING —This is an interesting question from the high interest rates specialist who has the dubious honour of being, I think, the only Treasurer in this country to preside over 20 per cent plus interest rates. I might add that he has been saying now for weeks that the Government's monetary policy is too lax. He has been running around the financial markets spreading his particular brand of poison, saying that I invite him to believe that the authorities continue to maintain a firm monetary policy. Yet in the same breath he acknowledges that the monetary aggregate cannot provide a reliable guide to current conditions. He says that if monetary policy is being kept firm one is entitled to ask: Where is the evidence? On the one hand he is saying that this Government is too soft on inflation. It has got inflation down to only 5 per cent. He says that what we really need is a tight monetary policy. He thinks we need to be as pure as the driven snow in respect of monetary policy. On the one hand he is saying that we need to tighten the money supply and push up interest rates; on the other hand he is saying that interest rates are too high and rising, as though this is some sort of an atrocity. He is saying that we have a lax monetary policy and he is extolling to us the virtues of a tight one. Let us get this on the record. At the moment the money supply is running at 3 per cent over the top of the Government's target range announced last year at the time of the Budget. The Government suspended the monetary target because of the changed relationship between the monetary aggregates and gross domestic product because of the reintermediation and intermediation taking place in the banking system owing to the Government's policies in respect of deregulation. I might add that they are policies which the former Treasurer always wanted to implement, as he always wanted to implement everything. The former Treasurer is suggesting, and has been for weeks, that we should chase the 13 per cent monetary growth down to 10 per cent. That means taking about $2,200m out of the system between now and June. One can just imagine what kind of credit squeeze Australia would have and what kinds of interest rates we would have to live with if we tried to take $2,200m more out of the tax rundown. Why is the tax rundown tight? It is tight for two reasons: The first is the financing of the tax payments on the enormous pickup of profitability of Australian business occurring as a result of this Government's policies. The other reason is the float of the dollar, which again the former Treasurer wanted to do but never had the guts, the courage or the strength to push through his Cabinet. Because of the float there is no longer reliance upon capital inflow to satisfy tax requirements. Hence there is seasonal pressure on interest rates at this time of the year. No one has ever denied that. I made that clear when I said in the election campaign that I accepted the view of most market commentators that a further interest rate step fall is ahead of us when we get through the tax rundown period. The honourable member asked me about that a week ago. I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave him a week ago. Mr LEO McLEAY —My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the actions of the Northern Territory Government last year to acquire compulsorily two casinos and the guarantees given by the Northern Territory Government that no taxpayers' money was involved in the purchase. I ask the Treasurer whether he is in a position to advise the House as to the validity of those guarantees. Mr KEATING —The former Northern Territory Chief Minister, one of the former champions of Australian business, and now the honourable member for the Northern Territory, gave all sorts of guarantees in the course of what is probably one of the most infamous episodes in the history of Australian public administration. He is a member of the Liberal Party, the Party which is supposedly worried about the state of business and the state of confidence. Federal Hotels Ltd had been given a 15-year lease, of which only five years has expired. It set up the casinos. It ran losses for every year bar the year it was being kicked out. It ran losses in financing the projects of the casinos. It ran losses in its administration. The last year of its tenure was the first year it turned in a profit to find that, as it did, it was being thrown out lock, stock and barrel with its assets being confiscated by the Northern Territory Government. Hence we saw the infamous 3 a.m. Press conference on the part of the then Chief Minister to announce that his Government was confiscating the two casinos in question. Of course this has had tragic consequences for the Northern Territory in terms of investor confidence. Wherever one goes in the world now it is always mentioned and spoken of and assurances are sought because these things rub off not just on the Northern Territory but also on the rest of Australia and in many places-- Mr Porter —Is that why our exchange rate has dropped and interest rates have gone up? Mr KEATING —The honourable member may squirm. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker has become a compulsive interjector. I warn him. Mr KEATING —He is brain damaged, Mr Speaker. Have pity on him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Treasurer not to use that sort of disrespect. Mr KEATING —Many people abroad fail to distinguish between the States and Territories of Australia. The question is put generally about Australia's reputation. Of course, the honourable member for Grayndler sought an answer in respect of the guarantees. The guarantees given on numerous occasions by the former Chief Minister were that no taxpayers' money was involved, that Territorians would not be contributing one cent for the purchase of the casinos. That is not the case. We have found that the Northern Territory Government has lent $21m to the new owners to part finance the acquisition and given a further guarantee of $26m in loans raised through a Sydney bank. On top of that, the gaming tax of 20 per cent, which was paid by Federal Hotels, has been dropped to 8 per cent for the new owners. So much for the value of the assurances of the honourable member for the Northern Territory in his former role as Chief Minister. What was the basis for this confiscation, this unprecedented piece of vandalism, on the part of the honourable member for the Northern Territory? He could see the dream of a $300m casino complex in Darwin. But his successor, Mr Tuxworth, a week or two ago said that the concept in the cold light of day did not make much sense. In other words, the world had been promised and the issue had fallen apart. We hear a lot of grumbling about the funds being provided by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory, and given this sort of activity on the part of the Northern Territory Government and the obvious waste of taxpayers' money involved, there is a very clear case for a re-examination by the Commonwealth of the level of funding to the Northern Territory. In particular, the current Chief Minister and his members have given themselves extraordinarily high salary increases in recent times. I think from memory that the Chief Minister is paid more than the Prime Minister, and members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly are paid more than members of the House of Representatives. In conclusion, we have seen an outrageous episode, as I have said, in Australian public administration. The assurances given by the honourable member for the Northern Territory were not worth a bean. Members of the Northern Territory public are carrying the folly of this piece of vandalism on their backs in terms of their contribution to these casinos, and the loss of the gaming tax. This was brought about by the Liberal-National Party Government members, the people who supposedly worry about the sanctity of government business arrangements, the word of governments and the expectations of business in respect of arrangements with governments. If any blame is to be placed for the serious damage that has been done to the outlook for business investment in the Northern Territory it resides in one place-with the current honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr HUNT —Why does the Minister for Primary Industry not support the national dairy marketing plan, which now has the unanimous support of all the State governments, including the Labor governments and also the industry? Is the Minister aware that Mr Bennett, the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, claims that the Minister has made false and misleading statements about the modified national plan? For instance, is the Minister aware that the same Chairman totally refutes his extravagant claim that the modified national plan will cost the Government $190m? Finally, was the Minister's alternative dairy plan formulated prior to 28 February? If so, why did he fail to inform the State Ministers at his conference that he was contemplating another plan? Mr KERIN —As the honourable gentleman realises, if he has any memory of the problems that his Government had through the 1977-78 period, it is impossible to get agreement between the States on the complex question of the Australian dairy industry. As he well knows at that stage Victoria held out and a compromise arrangement was put through. I had great joy in reading, only the other day, Mr Sinclair's speech when he introduced that legislation. The Opposition set off at that time to have the domestic value for levy purposes mechanism put in place. The ambition then was to proceed further to two other stages with the States in trying to get rational dairy marketing arrangements. Of course those other two stages never took place and nothing was achieved in the dairy industry. It is as a result of that legislation and that failure to get agreement that the industry is in the mess it is in today, as well as the fact that the previous Government increased the DVLPs by 27 per cent in 18 months and got all that extra production. The honourable gentleman asked why I do not back the industry's plan. I had five meetings with the Australian Agricultural Council and no agreement could be reached. A plan was put together, due to Mr Cain's intervention, which was internally inconsistent and which required quite a few things to which no Commonwealth Cabinet would agree. The big problem is that the States persist with the idea that there should be six separate industries and that the consumers and the Federal Government should cop the bill. The $190m that I referred to in a recent interview related to the demands from the so-called Leongatha militants and a range of proposals coming from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Australian Dairy Corporation and quite a few other bodies. The calculation was done by the Department of Primary Industry and was based on an increase of about 30 per cent DVLPs and $4.52 a kilogram underwriting. That is how the figure of $190m was arrived at. I think the ADFF's proposals would have cost about $50m. Mr Cain's proposal, which was agreed to by the States, involved locking up the industry into six separate industries. I think it is about time the Opposition, instead of criticising what is being done, put forward some propositions itself. It could not get any more agreement among its own State colleagues and its members on the back and front benches of this House than it did in 1977. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) — Pursuant to section 27 (3) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983, I present the Economic Planning Advisory Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 20 of he Special Prosecutors Act 1982, I present the final report of the Special Prosecutor R. V. Gyles, QC, for the period 1 July 1984 to 21 September 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present statements on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for October, November, December 1984 and January 1985. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present the child migrant education report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on rougher headed timber, empty gelatin capsules and vegetables and vegetable products-interim report on frozen peas. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977, I present the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Communications annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Home Affairs and Environment annual report for 1983-84 and recommend it as excellent reading. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented and seeks leave to make a personal explanation. I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in relation to the answer to the Dorothy Dixer this afternoon by the-- Mr Griffiths —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Orders, would you indicate to the honourable member for the Northern Territory the desirability of putting his speech on fast forward, otherwise it will not-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have warned honourable members previously about raising frivolous points of order. That warning applies as much to Government members as to Opposition members. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on the applicability of your rulings to Government members as well as Opposition members. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) sought to misrepresent certain actions taken in the Northern Territory in the course of the last 12 months or so. The Treasurer said that there had been a confiscation of the properties of Federal Hotels Ltd in the Northern Territory. The simple answer to that is that clause 16 (3) of a casinos agreement, which is part of legislation brought down in 1979 in the Northern Territory, provides for an option for the Northern Territory Government to purchase up to 100 per cent of the issued capital of Federal Hotels, Northern Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should relate his remarks to his personal association with the matter. He has been given the indulgence of the Chair-- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I can make my rulings without any assistance from honourable members on my right. I remind the honourable member that indulgence in this case has been granted so that he can explain where he has been personally misrepresented. I can understand in this case he was personally involved. He should relate his remarks to that personal involvement. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Speaker, the Treasurer said that I was personally involved in this matter. The Treasurer said that I was personally involved in a 3 a.m. Press conference-a sinister occasion, he said. The reason, of course, for the 3 a.m. Press conference was that Federal Hotels would not let go of the tables until 3 a.m. because it wanted to get as much money out of the operation as it possibly could. The Treasurer said that there had been some terrible confiscation. The fact is that the option clause in the agreement with Federal Hotels was triggered by the fact that the Northern Territory Government received a report from a trading bank operating in this country to the effect that Federal Hotels was in dire financial straits. In fact, that group subsequently recorded a $34m loss for the period. The Northern Territory Government acted at all times in strict accordance with laws in force in the Northern Territory at the time. Half way through the transaction, for political motives, there was a Foreign Investment Review Board freeze on the transaction which resulted-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not now referring to the point where he was personally misrepresented. I ask him to return strictly to that point, otherwise this will become an excuse to raise a debate. I do not intend to give indulgence if that debate is entered into. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Speaker, I do not crave your indulgence. I simply crave to explain how I have been misrepresented by what I say was a totally misleading answer by the Treasurer of Australia to a question this afternoon in this House. I am surprised that he would find time, when interest rates in this country are going up-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member should proceed with his explanation as to how he was personally misrepresented. Mr EVERINGHAM —To worry about a situation that has been totally resolved. The fact is that private enterprise funds have been involved in this takeover. The Foreign Investment Review Board freeze resulted in my successor in the Northern Territory having to make a loan through the Northern Territory Development Corporation to ensure the completion of the transaction. However, private enterprise funds, as originally proposed-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He has gone beyond making a personal explanation. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag 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 Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Cunningham and Mr Peter Fisher. 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: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. To the Prime Minister, Ministers and Federal Members in Parliament assembled. This Petition on behalf of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, concerned at the threat of nuclear devastation see the existence of U.S. Bases in Australia as an extreme threat to world peace, to national independence and security of Australia. We call upon the Federal Government to assist world peace by having all U.S. military bases on Australian territory removed for they make us a top target in the event of a nuclear war. For peace and Australia's safety, please heed our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in 'outer metropolitan' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 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 the 31st 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 Ewen Cameron. 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 Cowan. 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 Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both the country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulations, allowing Australian farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That sand mining on Moreton Island poses a threat to the natural ecology or environment. 2. That Moreton Island is included on the list of the Australian Heritage Commission, and the Federal Government is urged and indeed it must, under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, take into consideration the protection of the island. 3. That the Queensland Government has recently renewed mining leases against the advice of conservationists and a State Government sponsored Public Enquiry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to refuse requests for export permits covering mineral sand products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. 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 the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their effort to achieve a Nuclear-Free South Pacific and such declaration being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear-Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. 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 because videocassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic videocassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, We the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as ''relished descriptions of violence'' and ''publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana'' (Category 1), and ''sado-masochism'', ''extreme masochism'' (e.g. necrophilia), ''anal intercourse with consent'' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ''hardcore'' paperbacks containing ''relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student'', and ''extreme sexual torture'' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 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 3 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 place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 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 its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia showeth that the Attorney-General amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will restore the former section 4A of the Customs regulation to prohibit the importation of material that is obscene, indecent or blasphemous. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage already done to the cause of genuine tax reform by the factionalism within the Government. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.00) —I think it is fair to say that at present there is a very widespread view throughout the Australian community that the opportunity is at hand to bring about some lasting and sensible reforms to the Australian taxation system. At the outset I say on behalf of the Opposition that we would like to see sensible reform to the Australian taxation system. We in the Opposition share the view of many in the Australian community that the present taxation system has a large number of significant flaws, that it acts as a brake on incentive, that it does not operate justly, that it contains many inequities and that the time has now arrived-perhaps it arrived earlier-for significant reforms and improvements to the Australian taxation system. Therefore, I do not approach this debate at this stage in any needless point-scoring political sense. I think, as do members of the Opposition, that the cause of taxation reform is far too important for that. I hope that over the months ahead it will be possible to bring about sensible reform to the Australian taxation system. If we want to be reminded of the flaws in our taxation system we need only look at the main article on the front page of this morning's Australian Financial Review, reporting a, might I say, rather scathing attack on the present investment potential of Australia by none other than the long serving investment adviser to successive Australian governments, namely, Morgan Stanley of New York. The report records, among other things: Australia has produced ''one of history's great examples of 'bracket creep' . . . This is the American expression for the impact of high marginal rates of taxation on rising incomes. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) would know as well as I and other members of the House know that back in 1955 it took 18 times average weekly earnings to attract the top marginal rate of tax and that that ratio has now fallen to something like one and three-quarter times average weekly earnings. That figure as much as anything else tells the story and argues the case for a fundamental reform to our taxation system. The most interesting thing which has now emerged, however, is not that there is disagreement about the need for reform-more importantly, it is not that there is disagreement between leading members of the Government and the Opposition about the essential elements of that reform-but rather, it is the difficulty which is growing and which is being generated within the Government's own ranks about the nature of and the need for that reform. I am sure the attention of many honourable members was drawn this morning to the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, on which there is a very excellent table which seeks to bring together the different attitudes of the different interest groups in Australia on the question of taxation. The most fascinating thing of all about the table is that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the faction in the Australian Labor Party to which both of them belong are on almost all fours with the Opposition on the question of taxation reform. The trouble the Treasurer is having is not with his political opponents because, unlike the Labor Party when it was in opposition, we are not taking a negative and destructive attitude. I will come back to that in a moment. Not one senior member of the Government front bench now can escape the odium for the negative, destructive campaign they waged against the attempts of the former Government to reform the taxation system. The Treasurer knows, and I sympathise with him in a sense, that trying to bring about taxation reform is one of the most difficult things to do in Australian society. We have three-year parliaments. We have interest groups who pursue their own little interests without care for the national good. I was the target of that kind of behaviour when I was Treasurer. The Treasurer is the target of it now. Tax reform is one of those things that involve an enormous amount of short term pain in order to purchase some longer term gain or improvement. We in the Opposition realise that if we are to do something to bring about a lasting improvement in our taxation system we have to bring about some reforms. Therefore, from the word go we have adopted a constructive attitude. We have said repeatedly that we support the principal reform that is needed to Australia's taxation system; that is the introduction of a broadly based consumption tax coupled with a commensurate reduction in the levels of income tax. Without that we cannot have taxation reform in Australia. We can talk as much as we like about capital gains tax, about fringe benefits and about all the other incidentals of the taxation system, but if we really want to reform the Australian taxation system, if we really want to take the load off those marginal rates of personal taxation we have to bring in a broad-based consumption tax. Furthermore, that broad-based consumption tax has to operate with minimal and desirably no exemptions. Unless we do that we will not have enough money to bring about a major reduction in personal income tax. Unless we are willing to embrace that-to their credit the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are willing to do so-we can forget about taxation reform. We can have all the huffing and puffing, all the summits and seminars, all the White and Green Papers under the sun, but unless we are willing to embrace that one fundamental change we will not have genuine taxation reform. Again I say to the Government that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, to the extent that the Government moves in that direction it not only will be adopting Opposition policy but also will be adopting the one fundamental and lasting reform necessary to improve our taxation system. What is the problem? The problem is that the Government cannot get the numbers within its own ranks. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are becoming increasingly isolated within their own Party. If on this occasion the cause of taxation reform is lost, if at the end of the taxation summit the Government runs for cover and we have either no taxation reform or a half-baked taxation reform, the only people who can be blamed for that will be people within the Government and people within the Australian Labor Party. Those people will not be able to cast around and say: 'If only the Opposition had adopted a constructive attitude'. We had the Prime Minister the other night talking to the Australian Capital Territory economic society and saying: 'Taxation reform is very difficult. We all know that. Everybody has to be responsible and constructive. There is a very heavy burden on the Opposition to be constructive'. As far as the Opposition is concerned we have discharged that responsibility long since because we have adopted as a policy an attitude on taxation towards which both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are now moving. They will not be able to hang failure on us. The Prime Minister will not be able to blame us for not reforming the Australian taxation system. We have not imitated the negative behaviour of the present Treasurer and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) when they were in Opposition, and the then Leader of the Opposition. They exploited every single gripe and complaint of every single interest group in the community. They squeezed the lemon dry as far as short term discontent was concerned. Anybody can make an emotional short term case about a broadening of the indirect tax base. We can talk about taxing babies' clothes and taxing bassinets-we can talk about taxing this, that or the other-and say absolutely nothing about the need for reducing the high marginal rates of personal tax. If we all continue to do that we will end up with an even lousier taxation system than we have now. We will end up with a state of affairs in which the competitive position of this country will sink further and further down the international scale. A number of very important structural reforms to the Australian economy have to be undertaken. To the particular credit of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, one matter on which there has been a degree of bipartisanship is the deregulation of the financial system. I have never been unstinting in my compliments to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on that particular subject. But the next big test is the question of taxation reform. If the Government fails on that question, it will be because of the factionalism that bedevils the Labor Party. If one looks at the superb table on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and goes down the list, it can be seen that the problem is the ladies and gentlemen on the Government benches who sit on the Left. They are the problem and comprise the numbers the Prime Minister has to face. Do those ladies and gentlemen support a broad-based indirect tax? I receive no reply. The Government's real problem on the subject is to be found within its own ranks. It cannot get the numbers and is running into trouble. Day by day the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are becoming more and more isolated from their own Party on this issue. In the next few months the Australian public will watch very carefully what happens to taxation reform. It is needed, it is desirable, but unless it includes a broadening of the indirect tax base and an arrangement whereby the proceeds of the broadening of that base are applied to fund reductions in personal income tax, there will be no lasting and genuine reform. One other element is occasionally forgotten in the debate on taxation. I have said before, as have many Opposition members, that a segment of the taxation summit should be set aside to talk not about taxation but about expenditure. Unless expenditures are held at their present levels or reduced, everybody knows that there will be no real reductions in the overall burden of taxation. There is no argument between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and the Opposition on that subject. The Treasurer knows that unless levels of economic growth are maintained and expenditure restraint is brought about, although one might be able to reshuffle the pack of the tax mix, one will not be able to bring about an overall reduction. Does the house think that members of the Centre Left and the Left of the Labor Party embrace that proposition? Is it thought that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, embraces that proposition? Do all the ladies and gentlemen who sit on the left wing of the Government embrace that proposition? Of course they do not. They think that proposition is old hat. When they hear the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about that proposition, they groan again. Again, one has an example of just where the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stand in their own Party on the question of taxation reform. From the word go the Opposition has taken a constructive attitude towards the cause of taxation reform. I think that it will be a great shame if, as a result of what is going to occur this year, there is no fundamental change to and reform of the Australian taxation system. The Opposition has made that claim from the very beginning and that will remain its attitude. Of course we will question and scrutinise what the Government does. Of course we will examine carefully what it does and we are not giving the Government a free rein or a blank cheque on any aspect of taxation reform. But, unlike our opponents when they were in opposition, we shall take a constructive attitude because we think it is in the long term interests of Australia that there be fundamental reform of the taxation system. If the Australian community is denied that fundamental reform and improvement to the taxation system, if Australian individuals are denied relief from the increasingly crushing disincentive of personal tax levels, if Australian business is denied the opportunity of having a taxation regime that makes industry more competitive internationally, if Australian consumers are denied a taxation system which will promote the interests of the overall economy and the business climate far better than would the present system, it will not be because of the negative behaviour of the Opposition. It will be because of the factionalism of the Australian Labor Party. It will be because the Prime Minister made the fatal error of institutionalising and enthroning the factionalism in the Australian Labor Party at his famous cornflakes consensus at the Lodge only four weeks go, as remarked by one of our leading political columnists this morning. The blame will then well and truly be laid at the feet of this Government and its faction-ridden members for their failure to deliver the taxation reform that is so overwhelmingly necessary. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.15) — I am somewhat dismayed at the supposedly serious attempts by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to paint himself as a reasonable person in this debate. If he believes that tax reform is important in this country, what is reasonable in proposing a matter of public importance in these terms? It is calculated only to try to bring division to the Government side of the House. It is basically designed not to be helpful but to make the role more difficult. He knows how difficult it is and there is no point in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pretending that he will help this process. He says that if the Government proposes part of a tax reform package that he particularly likes and his Party prefers, he will co-operate. That is one element of the matter. But if it is a package he and his side will not co-operate. He has spent the last week breaking the legs off the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), after his Leader dared say that he would pass this Government's tax package even with such things as a capital gains tax, if it were to be so, even though that were anathema to his side. He made a clear and unequivocal statement that he would pass the Government's package, but that is not the position the Deputy Leader of the Opposition allows to obtain. He then got on his particular bike and got round his Party and with the other malcontents on the other side-the various members of the Opposition who have been pushed from the front bench to the back benches by the Leader of the Opposition-saw to it that there was a retreat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition retreated from the position put by his Leader. He will not pass a package of tax measures, but says that if the Government proposes the one he likes, that will be okay. Anything else he reserves his right to reject. The reason there is no tax reform in this country is that the former Treasurer-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-had no concept of getting broad community support. He had no framework for trying to bring together broad community support. He totally failed to introduce any concept of reform as a package. He presided over a scandalous breakdown of the taxation system. Even when the former Treasurer talks of an indirect tax, I remind the House that he proposed it as an add-on to the current system, not in the relief of income tax. He talked about an indirect tax as an addition to the burden of the level of taxation. That is no way to go about reform. If the former Treasurer is saying that the Prime Minister and I dare emulate his policy, I say that if it were such a good policy, why could not he get it through the former coalition Cabinet if his Party is philosophically aligned with this sort of shift in the tax system? The former Treasurer is the spruce goose of the Australian taxation debate. He could not be effective in making the plane fly. He could not get anything through that Cabinet, whether it was aligned with its philosophical position or otherwise. He mentioned this morning's Sydney Morning Herald story. The first thing I say about that is that the headline was not at all justified by the story and that the story was not at all justified by the facts. It is one journalist's view, and it supposes to describe a position inside the Labor Party, which it totally fails to do. So there is no point in looking at it. In fact, if one were to look at the table one would find substantial agreement across it about some of the major elements of the package. But of course, that is a very pluralistic newspaper and any view holds. It depends on who has the front page for the day. The former Treasurer had every opportunity to do something about the Australian taxation system. He had $3 billion of new revenue from the crude oil levy. What did he do with it? Did he use it to reform the taxation system? No, he spent it. What Government has been blessed with $3 billion of new revenue? The former Treasurer never at any stage attempted to reform the system. He simply spent the money. Looking through the honourable member's period of office and before, we find Sir Phillip Lynch speaking about massive tax avoidance. In 1977, he said: The Government is well aware of the activities in recent years of tax planners who, increasingly, are promoting tax avoidance schemes and arrangements throughout the business and professional communities. We propose to crack down hard on such practices. Many of the arrangements that taxpayers are being induced to enter into are highly artificial and contrived, but they are causing substantial amounts of revenue to be either lost altogether or deferred for considerable periods of time. The Government takes a serious view of these developments and proposes, in these Budget sittings, to bring forward amendments to combat these abuses of the provisions of the taxation laws. That statement was made in 1977. The honourable member for Bennelong was Treasurer for five years after that. Yet there were losses to revenue of about $2 billion through blatant tax avoidance. In fact the honourable member was driven to do something about it by the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. When the McCabe-Lafranchi report was presented, the former Treasurer said it was presented as a political stunt on the part of Mr Cain. In fact, the former Treasurer was driven to do something about it. He could have gained $2 billion of lost revenue. He had $3 billion from the crude oil levy. He saw the level of tax receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product rise inordinately in this country. During his period in office that level rose from 25 per cent to 27.2 per cent of GDP. He saw taxes grow under the Fraser Government by 143 per cent, from $18 billion to $44 billion. Where are his credentials in respect of tax reform when he had, firstly, a tremendous haemorrhaging of the revenue and, secondly, a tremendous addition to the revenue from the crude oil levy? Not at any stage did the former Government ever attempt to do anything serious about tax reforms. Taxation reform cannot be achieved without some real community support. This Government has the framework to do that. The Opposition does not believe in the prices and incomes accord. It has no truck with wage indexation and it knows full well that under its policies it is incapable of seeing any shift from direct to indirect taxation in any substantial way. Essentially, the Opposition is saying that it is looking to this Government to effect those sorts of changes because we alone have the institutional framework to attempt it. The Opposition does not have that framework at all because it knows that any movement to indirect taxation would flow straight back into wages and into inflation. As if any appeal by the Opposition to the Australian Council of Trade Unions would make any difference! The Opposition has attacked the ACTU for years. It has no respect for it. The Government in Queensland is trying to destroy the trade union movement. As if anyone would sit down in a co-operative framework and talk to the Opposition about tax reform! This Government is trying to do something about tax reform, despite the mealy-mouthed language of the matter of public importance, which reads: The damage already done to the cause of genuine tax reform by the factionalism within the Government. Is the honourable member for Bennelong serious? Of course there have been discussions about tax reform options in any party, and particularly in the Labor Party, which has very firm views about such things as equity, justice and fairness. Those concepts are lost on the honourable member's Party but they are not lost with the Government. They have to be settled, and they will be settled in the appropriate way. If they are not settled we will not see the sort of reform that this country needs. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is attacking his Leader. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) is on the back benches now and he is in the same position. The honourable member for Bennelong has been backgrounding journalists to the effect that he will not run against his Leader this year but he will do so next year. It is similar to what the honourable member was going to do with the float and with financial deregulation-- Mr Hodgman —You cannot talk about that. Mr KEATING —It is similar to what the honourable member was going to do with tax reform and every other-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! Mr Hodgman —Are you for the cat's paw or the drover's dog. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will come to order when asked to do so. Mr KEATING —The coalition is totally fractured by factionalism, centred mainly around the desire of the honourable member for Bennelong to unseat the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as Leader of the Liberal Party. That factionalism will continue to fester within that Party for as long as the honourable member for Kooyong remains its Leader. That Party is an impotent political force which is not to be taken seriously. I noticed that today the honourable member for Bennelong mentioned some Press statement that Morgan Stanley had made. I would have thought that the point being made in the article was a criticism of the legacy of 30 years of incompetent Liberal government. The article stated that Australia suffered from a stifling tax policy. Where did that stifling tax policy come from? Could it have come from us in two years? The stifling tax policy came from honourable members opposite. They got their mits on the public's money through inflation-- Mr Cadman —You know how much you increased it; it was the biggest grab ever. Mr KEATING —I hear the angry ant in his Liberal uniform, Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, interjecting from the back bench. I would have thought that Morgan Stanley was simply making the point that the structural issues in this country have not been tackled. A very important point is that Mr Biggs said that there seemed to be a developing feeling on the part of labour, management and the politicians that confrontation is not working. Of course it has not worked. For several years Malcolm Fraser beat the hell out of everyone on the left of politics, including the labour movement. What did we get for our trouble but a recession, massive unemployment and a taxation system which has broken down. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he cannot paint himself as reasonable and decent when he is doing his best to try to derail any sensible consideration of taxation issues and options when he pulls the rug out from under his own Leader, who made a principled statement about-- Mr Hodgman —You cannot talk about that. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, will you protect me from this low form of life on the other side of the table-- Mr Hodgman —You are the world's only two-faced ferret. Who are you stabbing in the back this year? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer and the honourable member for Denison will resume their seats. I did not hear the remark of the Treasurer. If it was offensive, I ask him to withdraw. Mr KEATING —It was not offensive; it was very descriptive. Mr Hodgman —You are the world's only two-faced ferret. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has been asked three times to stop interjecting. I now warn him that if he does it again I will name him. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Treasurer, if he is honourable, to withdraw the remarks he has made. Mr KEATING —I will withdraw the remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The honourable member has been uttering inane interjections for minutes. The point I am making is simply that the coalition has a choice in this matter: Either it can be reasonable and sensible and decent about it, as it wants to paint itself to be, or it can behave as it has behaved today. With this kind of proposal the Deputy Leader gets a choice. He will perhaps see something being realised by another Government-something which he was incapable of doing but which he knows is in the national good-or he can continue to try to attack his Leader in order to unseat him, even though his Leader's propensities are to do something decent about tax reform in this country. That is where the issue stands. This is not a discussion about tax or tax reform or tax options; it is simply a discussion about the behaviour of the Opposition versus the Government and an attack on what the Deputy Leader sees as factionalism in the Labor Party. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we will get much more sensible discussions on these major issues inside the Labor Party than we have ever heard inside the coalition. It is not simply a case of running flags up the pole and finding that one pulls them down with the first whiff of grapeshot. Mr Howard —Like fringe benefits. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting; otherwise the Chair will deal with him. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Leader is presuming that the Government has unveiled some sort of package. It has not. This matter has never been to the Cabinet. Despite the provocation from the Deputy Leader, we will continue to try to find consensus on tax reform in this country. Let the public at least not misunderstand the issues here. We have an impotent Opposition. It is divided. Its members are bickering amongst each other. They are jealous of each other's positions and are trying to score points from a government which is trying to do something decent and sensible about structural change in the Australian taxation system. Right through the election campaign honourable members opposite did everything possible to try to derail the Government's efforts to have a sensible discussion about at least keeping the options open on tax reform. All they did was attack in a mealy-mouthed way right through the election campaign, talking about night following day, and expressing all the other inanities. So they should not come to us with any sense of sincerity saying that they are decent and sensible and sincere about it. They are not, and unless they change their minds and decide that they want to see some change here, not just the options they prefer, they will not see tax reform in this country. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.31) —All we have heard from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this afternoon is distorted party-political rhetoric. The difference between the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition is that the Opposition has a taxation package. We know where we are going and the Government is lost in the woods of factionalism. Never in recent history has the time been more right in Australia for wide ranging taxation reform and never have the demands from the small business community, big business and ordinary Australian families been louder for the Government to act with courage and determination to simplify our taxation system, to make it fairer and to ensure that its economic impact is more neutral. Never also have the demands been louder for a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. The reform of our taxation system and the reduction of the overall burden of tax demands from the Government determination and resolve to carry through these reforms not in the interests of sectional interest groups or the loudest faction in the Labor Party but in the best interests of Australia. Of course, some of the necessary reforms will be unpopular with certain sectional groups and with some of those wilder factions of the Australian Labor Party but with leadership the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer should be able to introduce those reforms. They should be able to move towards a more broadly based indirect tax and reduce the enormous burden of personal income tax which is so clearly undermining the livelihood of many Australian families. They know only too well that Australia has one of the highest personal tax burdens in the Western world. They should also move to reject outright new taxation proposals which would destroy incentives, undermine investment and significantly weaken the small business sector and the position of farmers in particular-taxes such as a wealth tax, gift and death duties and, of course, the capital gains tax. We hear that the Treasurer supports this sort of package. We hear that the Prime Minister also supports this sort of package. The Prime Minister said on the Sunday program on 17 February that marginal tax rates were too high and were biting too early. He said there was a need to move to a wider indirect tax base with associated compensatory measures. The Treasurer said on 14 February that there was a need to take the indirect tax fight to the Party and he has several times advocated cuts in direct taxation, most recently when he apparently unveiled a tax package to the Caucus. On 19 March there were reports that the Treasurer opposed wealth and inheritance taxes. These sentiments are quite laudable, but why does the Government not go ahead and introduce these kinds of reforms? The answer is, as we saw with the MX missile testing issue, that neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has the guts to do what he believes is right. Instead of moving to introduce these measures, the Prime Minister, at the suggestion of a talk-back radio program host, has decided to throw the whole issue open to some absurd tax summit, a summit which in the words of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, 'could become a bit bloody useless'. The Prime Minister has invited several powerful interest groups to this summit and once he has heard their views, apparently, some sort of decision will be made as to what to do. That is a complete abrogation of leadership. The taxation debate and agenda have been set by a talk-back radio host, not by those who were supposed to be elected to govern. The paralysis of fear which has gripped the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this issue comes partly as a result of the rumbling in the ACTU but largely because of the fear they have of the factions within their own Party. Let us just look at the facts. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are now running away from their commitments not to introduce a capital gains tax. In June the Prime Minister said: 'We have no plans to introduce a capital gains tax'. At the same time the Treasurer said roughly the same thing. He said: 'The Government has no plans for a capital gains tax'. But suddenly we hear that a capital gains tax is on the cards. The Centre Left faction, apparently led by the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), wants a capital gains tax. Its draft reform paper calls for 'a capital gains tax and a tax on large inheritances'. Apparently the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), speaking for the Left of the ALP, wants a capital gains tax also. So do Senator Childs and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). According to the Senior Vice President of the ACTU on 6 March, the ACTU also wants a capital gains tax. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer will not deny any longer that such a tax is imminent. Even though we know that they do not want the tax, even though they know that such a tax is damaging, they will not stand up to their own factions and the ACTU. What about all this talk of the broadening of the tax base? Once again opposition has come from at least some parts of the trade unions and from our old friends in what the Prime Minister himself has described as the phone box minority of the ALP. On 10 March, for example, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs told the Returned Service League, of all groups, that he was opposed to moves to place greater reliance on indirect taxes. This was not any old back bencher, this was a Government Minister. The same view was expressed earlier this month in a letter from Senator Childs to the New South Wales Labour Council. At least these people are consistent. We all remember that the Labor Party, during the period of the Fraser Government, knocked out $300m worth of sales tax measures designed to broaden the indirect tax base. At least these members of the Left are consistent in their opposition to it. Honourable members may wonder what effect all this debate and all these divisions within the ALP are having on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has continually reminded the community, on 14 March the Prime Minister in his greatest abrogation of leadership so far, said: The Government will not proceed with legislation of a taxation reform package which does not have broad community support. He went on to say: We know that even this time, with a Government committed to reforms that make Australia a fairer society . . . reform may not be possible. Why is it not possible? The Government apparently has the numbers in this House, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are supposed to have the numbers in the Caucus and the Government knows that the community is calling for and favours taxation reform. Yet that Prime Minister, desperately trying to cling on to his sliding popularity, whatever the cost to the nation may be, now thinks major tax reform can be sacrificed on the altar of ALP factionalism and the rumblings from the ACTU. I mentioned earlier that the community was crying out for taxation reform, but it is also crying out for a lightening of the taxation burden through smaller government. That is more important, I think, in an overall sense than just some form of taxation reform. Yet, as we all know, in the last two Budgets the average annual growth in government outlays in real terms has been 6.9 per cent and the real average annual growth in the Budget deficit in the last two Budgets has been 14.9 per cent. As I have said on another occasion in this House, if the Government really wants another summit it should first hold an expenditure summit to put together proposals which will significantly cut spending, thereby opening the way not just for taxation reform but for a much lighter overall tax burden. That view was endorsed on 7 March by the presidents of the four peak business organisations in this country who expressed, in colourful words, deep concern about the level of government spending and high taxes which they called 'an intolerable burden'. In dramatic contrast to the Government, the Opposition is showing leadership and direction on the issue of taxation reform and a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. We put a constructive package of taxation reform to the electorate last year and we remain committed to that package. The Government, as the Treasurer has pointed out, has no package whatsoever. It went to the electorate asking for a complete blank cheque. The complete blank cheque that the Government finally got as a result of the election has led to endless negotiations between all sorts of factions within the Australian Labor Party. The Prime Minister does not know what the results of those negotiations will be; the Treasurer does not know what the results will be, nor does the business community, which is sitting in expectation. Not even the ACTU, I might say, has fully decided in which direction this issue is going to go. The community just sits and waits while the various factions of the Labor Party fight internally on this fundamental issue of taxation reform. Never in Australia's recent history has there been a greater contrast between an opposition which knows where it is going and a government that is lost. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(3.41) —The central issue in this debate is the need to speak about genuine taxation reform and how it can be achieved by this Government, and to compare the Opposition's record on tax reform when it held office between 1975 and 1983 with this Government's record. It was interesting to hear the recent speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), talk about tax reform-about the need for tax reform and how the Opposition favours such reform. Obviously he is a new member. Obviously he was not in this place when the Opposition, which he now forms part of, was in government. If one is to speak of factions within the parties, one need go no further than to look at the differences of opinion within the coalition parties. Indeed, one has only to compare the speech given last night by the honourable member for Mayo in opposition to the assets test with the statements he made prior to the election when he expressed his belief in the need for an assets test. I do not intend to go too far back on this matter, but I believe that some of the differences should be flushed out. I take honourable members back to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 13 February 1981, about tax reform. It talks about National Party of Australia plans to tax capital gains and indeed its praise for suggestions that capital gains should be taxed. That same article goes on to say that the Queensland National Party's flat rate tax proposal is much more radical. It certainly was much more radical, because it was never proceeded with. In fact, the Liberal Party of Australia, immediately after that was suggested by the National Party, came out and said there was no way that they were going to introduce a flat rate tax. One can also talk about the introduction of broadly based indirect taxes. Although the Liberal-National Party coalition before the election last year said that it would introduce a broadly based indirect tax, the National Party went on to say that it may not be in the first Budget. One can go on and on. Even the Young Liberals at their convention in January this year voted to support a capital gains tax, a move which directly challenges the Federal Liberal Party. Although there may be differences within the Labor Party, there are certainly as many differences within the coalition parties. In any debate on tax reform it is necessary to go to the central issue and ask why we need such reform, why it is necessary to so reform the taxation system after only 40 years of uniform taxation by the Commonwealth. The answers to these questions lie in the record of the former coalition Government, which failed so miserably to implement and maintain a fair taxation system. When in government honourable members now sitting opposite adopted a laissez faire approach to taxation reform by failing to maintain a fair mix of taxation to income through indexation of the tax scales and by their inability or unwillingness to crack down on the tax avoidance industry. Their whole approach to taxation was not to do anything until community pressure built up. Then a great flurry of promises were made and it was publicised far and wide that the coalition Government was set to reform the system. This happened so often over the years that the taxation system resembled a boiling kettle, where steam was let off every now and again when public protest pressure built up, but where no attempt was made to turn down the heat. The previous Government's taxation measures never got to the issue of reform, but rather were designed solely for political expediency. On many occasions the previous Government made promises on tax reform and either did not keep them or brought down other measures which had the effect of nullifying benefits previously given. I instance the 1977 Budget, which was brought down only months before an election was called. The coalition Government offered tax cuts, maintained some indexation and offered a range of goodies. Those supposedly responsible economic managers estimated that the cost of such measures would lead to a Budget deficit of only $1.4 billion. Three months later they called an election and won. Almost immediately afterwards it became apparent that the Budget had blown out, with the Budget deficit heading towards $2.5 billion. The coalition Government had given the electorate the goods before the election but had wrongly calculated the cost. In the 1978 Budget it took back its tax concessions, backed down on its promise of full indexation, introduced the oil levy and dismantled Medibank. Excise taxes were increased and there were further increases in sales taxes and other indirect taxes. In the 1977 Budget the Treasurer announced that a new tax scale would be introduced on 1 February 1978. The seven marginal tax brackets were replaced by only three tax brackets, with the tax-free threshold being increased to $3,750, but with the existing general rebate of $676, which went to all taxpayers, being abolished. What the new tax scales did, of course, was to make the taxation system more regressive to those on lower and middle incomes. In July 1978 the then Government applied its so-called half indexation to the new tax scales. The 10.9 per cent consumer price index increase was discounted by 3.3 per cent. The remaining indexation factor of 7.6 per cent was then halved and the tax brackets were raised by 3.8 per cent. The net effect really was therefore closer to a one-third indexation. A few months later the tax system was changed again as a completely separate policy measure. From 1 November 1978 the Government changed the marginal tax rates applying within each of the tax brackets by adding a temporary tax surcharge of 2.57c to each of the marginal rates. In November 1979 it dropped the temporary surcharge but failed to index the tax scales for the 1979-80 financial year to make allowance for the 7.9 per cent average increase in the CPI. In 1980, an election year, partial indexation was restored by increasing the tax brackets by 3.8 per cent, which hardly accounted for a CPI increase of over 9 per cent. On 29 April 1981 the Government announced the proposed abolition of tax indexation. Treasurer Howard stated that the government viewed discretionary adjustments to taxation scales and allowances as preferable to tax indexation. The tax scales were subsequently indexed for the last time on 1 July 1981. The unadjusted CPI increase was 9.9 per cent and this was discounted to 7.6 per cent. Half indexation was then applied, with the tax scales and rebates being increased by 3.8 per cent. In summary, for the six financial years 1976 to 1982 full indexation was applied only twice, and then the CPI increases were discounted for the effects of indirect taxes. That meant in effect that the tax scales were never fully indexed for inflation. In three of the remaining years half indexation was applied and in 1979 there was no indexation at all. For a single person with no dependants, tax indexation over those six financial years amounted to only 46 per cent of the CPI increases. The overall effects of these changes has been to place a greater taxation burden on lower and middle income earners. The coalition parties, now thankfully in opposition, made a sorry mess of the taxation system when in government. They are in no position to criticise the Government on its efforts. On the closure of tax avoidance loopholes, the former Government's record is even more futile. On the whole, the Opposition's record in relation to the problem of tax avoidance has been abysmal. The Opposition, when in government, was unresponsive to the needs of our society when there was a national call by all Australians to tax equity and in particular a call to squash the thriving tax avoidance industry. Any attempts the Opposition made to confront tax avoidance were taken only when it seemed politically expedient to do so. As a result, the Opposition's approach to tax avoidance was totally piecemeal and lacked cohesion, design and real purpose. The Opposition has been virtually impotent in its attempt to deal with tax avoidance. One can only question the reasons for the Opposition's delay. The way in which the Opposition dealt with the loopholes illuminated in the Curran case is a classic example. The relevant loophole was never acknowledged by the High Court of Australia. Legislation seeking to plug the loophole was not introduced until 1978, some four years later. The Opposition has been reluctant, to say the least, to use the arsenal of government to battle tax avoidance. The Government, in its short period of office, has done a great job to plug tax loopholes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise an additional voluntary contribution by Australia of $A60m towards the resources of the International Development Association, or as it is commonly known, IDA. Established in 1960, IDA is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long term, interest free loans to promote their development. The resources of the Association come mainly from subscription by the industrialised countries, pledged in periodic general replenishments. Honourable members will recall that the target for the seventh replenishment of IDA's resources, IDA-7, which is intended to cover commitments during the period 1985-87, was agreed by donors at $US9 billion. This represented a considerable decline in real terms from the $US12 billion which was provided under the sixth replenishment, but was the maximum attainable in the face of the decision by the United States of America not to contribute to a higher figure. Australia, in common with other IDA donors, considered the result to be gravely inadequate, given the needs of the Association's recipient community. Australia was willing to support proposals by the World Bank to establish a supplementary fund but it was not possible to obtain international donor agreement to such an exercise. Last year this Parliament passed the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill authorising a contribution of $A200m to the seventh replenishment of IDA. At that time, the Government indicated that it was considering how best it might further assist IDA to overcome the reduction in assistance levels to the poorest countries implied by the low level of the seventh replenishment. During passage of that Bill the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the House that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had announced at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank annual meetings in Washington that, subject to Government approval, Australia would further respond to the needs of IDA recipients by making a voluntary and unilateral special contribution to IDA. It was further stated that this voluntary contribution would be a very substantial increase on our pledge of $A200m to IDA-7. We have chosen to make our additional voluntary contribution direct to the general resources of IDA rather than to a recent voluntary multilateral funding facility for sub-Saharan Africa which has been joined by some other donors. Not only will sub-Saharan Africa benefit from part of this contribution, roughly equivalent to our notional multilateral share of the facility for Africa, but the poorest countries of our own region and elsewhere will benefit substantially too. The World Bank has expressed appreciation for Australia's action in announcing its intention to make a special contribution to IDA, and has stated that this is fully in accord with the bank's own preferences and priorities. Australia has the option of paying its $60m contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, we propose to lodge promissory notes, and to effect the lodgment in 1985-86. This will spread the impact on the Budget over about 10 years starting with a small encashment in the next financial year. The impoverished countries of the world depend upon IDA for development assistance on concessional terms. Australia's voluntary contribution will emphasise our commitment to assist the poorest countries; it will also underline the importance we attach to IDA as a source of development assistance for these countries. This Bill therefore provides Australia with the means to achieve these major humanitarian objectives through established cost effective means. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which governs extradition between Australia and other member countries of the Commonwealth. That legislation is based on a scheme, known as the London scheme, agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1966 to regulate the extradition of fugitive offenders between Commonwealth countries. All Commonwealth countries have based their domestic extradition legislation insofar as it relates to extradition with other Commonwealth countries on the London scheme. In 1983 Commonwealth Law Ministers met to review the London scheme and agreed to certain changes to it to improve its operation. Putting these changes into effect requires amendment to the legislation of the various Commonwealth countries and this Bill provides for those amendments to the Australian legislation. A Bill was in fact introduced in 1984 but lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament that year. In addition to the amendments dealt with by Commonwealth Law Ministers the Bill incorporates amendments considered necessary to resolve difficulties which have risen in the practical operation of the legislation and to improve the structure of the legislation. The more significant amendments provided for by the Bill are as follows: Voluntary return: This procedure will allow a fugitive to waive the full extradition process and be returned voluntarily to the requesting country. Appeal by requesting country: At present only the fugitive may appeal against a magistrate's decision on an extradition application. This amendment will permit an appeal to be lodged on behalf of the requesting country if the magistrate rejects the extradition request. Executive discretion to refuse extradition: This amendment will extend the Attorney-General's discretion to refuse to extradite in any situation where it would be unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. At present the discretion may be exercised only if the triviality of the offence, mala fides or lapse of time would make it unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. Extradition for fiscal offences: This amendment will make it clear that offences against laws relating to taxation, Customs duties, foreign exchange control and other revenue matters which have hitherto not been extraditable, will be extraditable. Speciality rule: This amendment will make it clear that an extradited person may not be tried in the requesting country for offences other than those in respect of which his extradition has been granted until he has been given an opportunity of leaving that country. At present the legislation provides that a person may not be tried for any offence other than an offence in respect of which extradition was sought until he has been given the opportunity of returning to the requested country. Offences of a political character: This amendment will provide that a decision to refuse extradition because the offence in respect of which extradition is sought is of a political character may be taken only by the Attorney-General and not the magistrate. Decisions of the courts in this area have not been helpful and it is considered that in any event such decisions would more appropriately be taken by the executive. This is the practice in the United States of America. Evidence that may be led by a fugitive: An extradition hearing is not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the fugitive but whether a case exists which would justify the fugitive's trial in the requesting country. Magistrates have in the past permitted fugitives to lead evidence to challenge the merits of the prima facie case sought to be established by the requesting country. This amendment will make it clear that such evidence may not be led. The fugitive may of course argue that a prima facie case is not established. Convictions in absentia: This amendment will make it clear that, where a fugitive is sought for an offence in respect of which he has been convicted in absentia, whether that conviction is final or not, the requesting country must produce evidence of guilt as well as of the conviction. Application for habeas corpus: At present a fugitive committed to prison to wait extradition may apply for habeas corpus to any court of competent jurisdiction. The proposed amendment will make it clear that application may be made to the Federal Court or the appropriate State Supreme Court but not both. Any appeal from the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court will be heard by a Full Court of the Federal Court. The amendments proposed will significantly improve the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. This legislation has no financial impact. I think this summarises the situation and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for amendments to the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. That Act regulates Australia's extradition relations with countries that are not members of the Commonwealth and with which Australia has extradition arrangements. Two amendments to this Bill are of particular importance and result from the work of the task force I established in February of this year to conclude extradition arrangements with appropriate countries as a matter of urgency. The first amendment will enable Australia to conclude extradition arrangements with countries which do not require the requesting country to furnish evidence of guilt but rather information as to the allegations against the fugitive. This amendment is of particular significance to civil law countries whose systems have difficulty in adapting to the provision of pre-trial evidence. The extradition arrangements of most European countries which are reflected in the European Convention on Extradition do not require the production of prima facie evidence. The second amendment will permit the conclusion of arrangements which permit extradition to be granted for any offence which carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment or more without specifically describing the offence. This latter amendment will avoid difficulties which have been experienced in the past where the same offence is described differently in law of the two countries concerned. The second amendment reflects the trend to 'no list' treaties in modern extradition law. Advice of the proposed amendments has been particularly well received by civil law countries in Europe, several of which have indicated a readiness to conclude modern treaty arrangements as soon as these amendments are law. On the question of treaty arrangements generally, I should add that the draft model treaty which I approved recently has already been distributed to some countries which the task force has identified as countries with which the conclusion of treaty arrangements should be given priority. Apart from these two significant amendments it should be noted that most of the amendments to the London Scheme agreed to by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1983 to which I referred in introducing the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 are equally applicable to the legislation governing extraditions between Australia and countries which are not Commonwealth countries. This Bill accordingly incorporates all the amendments proposed to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 which are appropriate to be incorporated in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. In addition, the Bill incorporates amendments considered necessary to resolve difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the legislation and to improve the structure of the legislation. As such the Bill will significantly improve that Act and facilitate the processing of extradition requests by and of Australia. Finally, I should say that these proposed amendments to extradition law are part of a number of measures by the Government to facilitate the fight against major crime. There is an increasing international element in major crime today and, in particular, major crime involving illicit dealing in narcotic drugs. The amendments should therefore also be seen as part of the Commonwealth's overall plan to combat drug trafficking. We must be able to apprehend effectively our fugitives overseas and to return them to Australia to be dealt with under our law. The proposed amendments will assist in that process, in particular, by providing a proper base for the task force on extradition to enter into efficient modern extradition arrangements with overseas countries. This legislation has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to replace the Australian Meat Research Committee with an incorporated body called the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The new Corporation will have the independence, flexibility and authority to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of meat and livestock research and development. The Bill is also designed to improve the means by which expenditure on research and development is accounted for by providing that those responsible for the spending decisions report to those providing the funds. Concurrently with passage of the Bill the approval of Parliament is required for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985. Other Acts to be amended are the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 and the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. For convenience the Bills will be debated together as cognate measures. The Commonwealth assists rural research in two ways. The first way is directly through organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The second way is as a provider of financial support through the rural industry research funds, which are known as RIRFs, and through various research grants, including the Commonwealth special research grant. The RIRFs are joint industry-Commonwealth schemes established within my portfolio to fund research for individual rural industries. Each scheme is co-ordinated by a research committee. The committees comprise representatives nominated by the relevant industry and interested research organisations and officers of my Department. Research sponsored by the RIRFs is funded by levies on the industry which are matched dollar for dollar with Commonwealth appropriations. In the case of the meat and livestock industry the Australian Meat Research Committee co-ordinates research funded through the meat research trust account. A number of recent reports have questioned the organisation and funding of rural research schemes. These include reports by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Commonwealth's role in rural research and extension services which was published in November 1982, the Balderstone working group on agricultural policy which was published in September 1982 and an in-house joint management review of the administration of research schemes in the Primary Industry portfolio which was published in May 1983. The accountability of some of the RIRFs to the industries they are designed to serve and the relevance of the research they fund to the technical, social, economic and welfare needs of those industries have also been called into question in recent times by primary industry leaders. The more important findings of these groups were: Research committees were 'passive' in selecting projects; 'Value for money' considerations were not given sufficient weight in project selection; The Department of Primary Industry should progressively divest itself of administrative involvement in the RIRFs; More flexibility is needed in allocating funds to more diverse research activities and this could be achieved by widening the representation on research committees without necessarily increasing their size. In the light of these reports the Government agreed that changes to the organisation and funding of rural research schemes generally were desirable. Action is in hand to rationalise the existing body of rural industry research legislation which has developed piecemeal over time. In the case of meat research, the reports highlighted the administrative, legal and financial constraints under which the Australian Meat Research Committee is operating. For example, the Meat Research Committee is unable to enter contracts or manage its own funds. To initiate, or even slightly modify, one of its research projects requires specific ministerial authorisation. Incorporation is considered the most practical way of facilitating a more effective and efficient funding of meat research and development. It eliminates the need for outside intervention in the day to day administration of these activities and provides a more flexible and commercially appropriate organisational structure. A separate corporation to manage the industry's research and development resources reinforces the key role which must be played by research and development if the meat and livestock industry is to respond flexibly and creatively to future opportunities. Research and development is so important that we must not allow it to be overly influenced by groups or institutions with particular functional responsibilities. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation will have the overall responsibility of making its own assessment of the industry environment and planning research and development accordingly. In developing an understanding of that environment it will need to understand and appreciate the objectives and aspirations of producers, processors, exporters and other institutions like the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation which serve the industry in other areas. With this in mind, I expect the Research and Development Corporation to consult closely with other groups in the industry, especially the AMLC. There are provisions in the Bill which will encourage this process. I am sure there will be regular staff contact between the AMLC and the Research and Development Corporation and at a more formal level. The Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council will provide opportunities to ensure that the industry's total resources, including research and development, are being directed to well defined long term objectives. In announcing the Government's proposed reforms to the meat and live-stock industry in November 1983 I foreshadowed the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. Subsequently I set up a working committee to develop a blueprint for this body. The committee included representatives from the livestock industry, the meat processing industry, universities, CSIRO and State governments. The committee submitted its report in July 1984 and this has formed the basis of the Government's decision on setting up the Corporation. In passing, I would like to pay tribute to the members of the working committee for the excellent job which they did. The functions and powers which the Government has agreed to for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation will put meat and livestock research and development on a fully commercial and innovative basis. It will ensure that the whole spectrum of economic, technical, organisational and welfare issues is examined and that priorities for research effort are serviced. There is specific mention of both research and development in the title of the proposed new Corporation. This is to make it clear that the functions of the Corporation extend beyond research to servicing the adoption of innovations applicable to the industry. It indicates that in its assessment of research projects, the Corporation is to have regard to their potential to improve the position of the meat and livestock industry. Specifically, the Corporation will have the objective of maximising the return on its research and development funds to the meat and livestock industries; have its members selected on the basis of qualifications and experience in the same way as is done for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation; have financial powers and responsibilities consistent with a commercial undertaking; actively seek out research and development projects; prepare a rolling five year research and development plan of proposed activities and an annual operational plan of individual research and development projects to be financed; approve expenditure on research and development projects across the spectrum from production to consumption; be able to enter joint ventures and exploit patents on research and development which it has funded; have commercial borrowing and investment powers; be allowed to appoint staff and set the terms and conditions of their employment, in consultation with the Public Service Board; report annually on its performance against its annual operational plan; and be accountable to an annual general meeting of registered members of the industry in the same way as is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I now turn to specific clauses and provisions in the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985. In clause 4, meat and livestock research and development has been defined to allow the Research and Development Corporation to pursue promising research and development projects right through to their full commercial potential. Provision has been made to include other meat animals besides cattle, buffaloes, sheep, lambs and goats if the need arises. However, it is not intended to include pigs and poultry, as these animals are subject to separate research schemes. Corporation members will be chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience. The corporation is to consist of 11 members, namely, a Chairperson, a Government member, the Executive Director of the Corporation and eight other members. The Executive Director is to be appointed by the Corporation and will become an ex-officio voting member of the Board. The eight other members will be selected on the basis of special professional skills and experience in the fields of meat and livestock production, meatworks operation, research and development, economics, finance and business management. They will be selected, for the Minister's appointment, by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. Recent changes in the meat and livestock legislation have been designed to secure the close involvement of industry in policy and planning aspects as, for instance, with the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. This Bill will further the involvement of industry. Under clause 22 the Corporation is required to convene an annual general meeting of industry members. Attendance at the meeting is open to those whose names appear on the registers of members maintained by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Voting entitlements are the same as for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The Bill allows wide ranging powers for the AGM. The AGM can comment on or query any aspect of the Corporation's annual report or general activities. The AGM can vote on resolutions, with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council to be notified of the outcome. Under the Bill the Corporation is required to put as a motion to the AGM any planned variation to levies or charges for research and development. Finally, the AGM, under clause 28, will have the power to cause the removal of the Chairperson of the Corporation or its members. A vote of no confidence in the Chairperson or membership of the Corporation would be carried only if 75 per cent of the votes of persons registered in each of the livestock producer and processor-exporter categories were cast at the AGM in support of the motion, either in person or by proxy. To avoid duplication and save on expenses the Corporation will not maintain its own registers of members. It will use the registers maintained by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. As membership and voting rights for both bodies are identical, maintenance of a separate register would only serve to increase costs. The Corporation will reimburse the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation half the costs of maintaining its registers of members. For the convenience of those wishing to attend the AGM of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation as well as that of the Research and Development Corporation the Bill has been drawn to provide that both meetings be held on the same day if it is practicable to do so. Other arrangements to ensure the Corporation carries out its responsibilities in a business-like manner are included in Part V of this Bill which also provides the basis for its relationship with the Minister. Under Clause 30 the Corporation will be required to prepare a long term research and development plan. The first plan, which is to come into operation within 12 months of the establishment of the Corporation, will run to 30 June 1990. Thereafter each plan will be for a five-year period. The research and development plan will define the Corporation's principal objectives and outline the broad strategies it proposes to pursue in the achievement of its objectives. Complementary to the five-year plan is the requirement under clause 35 for an annual operational plan to set down the particular projects that the Corporation proposes to fund, the type of projects it would be prepared to fund for the 12 months ahead and its estimated total budget. It will be noted that the Bill requires both the five-year research and development plan and the annual operational plan to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for approval. These obligations provide an accountability arrangement which focuses the Minister's and Corporation's attention on the objectives, strategies and priorities of the Research and Development Corporation in relation to its total resources and allows the consistency of the annual operational plan to be compared with the Corporation's long term research and development strategy. Approval of both the research and development plan and the annual operational plan will enable the Minister to exercise overall supervision of the Corporation's activity, without involving himself in unnecessary detail. It will avoid the constant reference to the Minister for approval of each separate research and development project or changes to projects, which is a feature of the present arrangements. The Corporation will be subject to Division 2 of Part XI of the Audit Act 1901 and will thus be required to submit an annual report and financial statements to the Minister for Primary Industry. There is also a requirement that the Corporation include a copy of the annual report in its notice of meeting to members. The report will include a statement of objectives, particulars of activities funded and an assessment of its success in meeting its objectives. Thus the annual report will serve as a medium both for the Corporation to advise the industry about its activities and plans, and for the industry to make judgments about the effectiveness of the operations of the Corporation. It is a further measure in ensuring the accountability of the Corporation to both the industry and the Parliament. With regard to the financial implications of this Bill and the three companion Bills, the principal cost to the Government and hence the general taxpayer comprises the amount of the Commonwealth's matching contribution. As I explained earlier, the Government has matched industry funds for rural research on a dollar for dollar basis. In 1985-86 this is estimated to be $5.3m. It can be expected to increase substantially in the next few years. On 28 February I announced the Government's decision to increase the maximum level of its contributions for rural industry research. Our objective is to raise the government contributions to research under the Rural Industry Research Fund to 0.5 per cent of the annual gross value of production over the next five years. This, of course, is dependent on an equivalent contribution by rural industries. For the meat and livestock industry this initiative would provide an opportunity to embark on a much expanded research and development program. The Commonwealth contribution for meat research and development could increase by as much as $8m or $9m per annum to around $14m by 1989-90 on the basis of 1984-85 levels of gross value of production. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985 which I have just introduced. Its purpose is, firstly, to effect consequential amendments to the enabling Acts of three related instrumentalities. Secondly, the Bill seeks to repeal the existing meat research legislation and, thirdly, it proposes transitional provisions for the period before the new research and development arrangements become fully operational. In the case of two of the Acts that are being amended to accommodate the new research and development arrangements, opportunity is being taken to effect some other amendments of a minor nature. I will now deal with the details and rationale of the proposed changes. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act The changes to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 which are required as a result of the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation concern the provisions dealing with the registers of persons entitled to attend the annual general meetings of the industry that are kept by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I pointed out in my second reading speech on the research and development Bill that the Research and Development Corporation will not maintain its own registers. As eligibility and voting rights for both AGMs are identical there is no point in the Research and Development Corporation duplicating the registers of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Formal provision is made for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to give the Research and Development Corporation access to its registers. It is also provided that the Research and Development Corporation will bear half the costs of maintaining the registers. The relevant provisions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act are being widened to extend the applicability of the registers to AGMs convened by the Research and Development Corporation. A provision is to be inserted to protect the eligibility of persons whose applications for enrolment on the registers have been received by the closing date but could not be processed on or before that date. The remainder of the proposed amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act are intended to clarify some existing provisions and to correct minor oversights that occurred when effecting earlier amendments to the Act. Thus the functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation with respect to recommending changes in live-stock slaughter levies and export charges are being amended to confine its recommendations to levies and charges made for the purpose of its own funding. This action is necessary because the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is no longer responsible for recommendations for changing levies and charges raised for research purposes. Amendments to the Act in 1984 were intended to remove a limitation on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation restricting it to trading only in meat and livestock that it owns. While this restriction was removed from section 9 which sets out the Corporation's trading powers, no corresponding change was made to paragraph 15 (1) (a), which authorises the use of the Corporation's trading powers to meet Australia's international commitments. The amendment in clause 7 will remedy this inadvertent omission. Due to a similar oversight, section 26 of the Act still provides that a member of a consultative group shall be paid remuneration determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. This provision is no longer necessary now that the consultative groups have been abolished as a consequence of the establishment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council. Accordingly the Bill removes the reference to 'a member of a consultative group'. The amendment in clause 10 to section 30H of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act will clarify the necessity to set up an interim corporation in a situation where an annual general meeting passes a vote of no confidence in the Corporation and where the replacement of members of the Corporation with new appointees would take longer than a month. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act One change to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984 is required as a result of the research and development legislation. This is to provide for the Chairperson of the Research and Development Corporation to become a member of the Policy Council in lieu of the Chairman of the Australian Meat Research Committee. Amendments to Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act The functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee are amended by the Bill to provide that the Committee will select persons to be nominated for appointment to the Research and Development Corporation as well as the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. The Research and Development Corporation is to comprise 11 members. The Chairperson and the Government member will be selected and appointed by the Minister. The Executive Director will be selected and appointed by the Corporation. The remaining eight are to be selected by the Industry Selection Committee. The persons selected will be required to possess qualifications relevant to or experience in the fields of activity specified in clause 28 of the Bill. Responsibility for the costs incurred in selecting persons for appointment to the Research and Development Corporation will lie with that body. The Bill provides that the Industry Selection Committee will determine the amount of the costs involved and advise the Research and Development Corporation. Repeal and Transitional Provisions The transitional provisions in the Bill are designed to effect a smooth changeover of the responsibilities for meat and livestock research from the Australian Meat Research Committee to the Research and Development Corporation on the day that the new Corporation is proclaimed to come into existence. Provision is made for moneys standing to the credit of the Meat Research Trust Account or held by the Commonwealth for payment into that account on that day to be paid to the Research and Development Corporation. Arrangements or agreements entered into by the Australian Meat Research Committee will continue in force with the Research and Development Corporation assuming the Committee's responsibilities. Any debts of the Meat Research Committee on that day will be taken over by the Research and Development Corporation. However the responsibility for preparing the final report on the operations of the Australian Meat Research Committee will remain with that body. There are no additional costs for the Commonwealth in the Bill. The transfer of cash balances from the Meat Research Trust Account to the AMLRDC will increase Budget outlays in 1985-86 but will not add to the public sector borrowings. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to be consistent with the changed provisions for future meat and livestock research and development. The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 imposes a levy on the slaughter of livestock. Part of the levy funds the industry's contribution for research and development. The Bill provides that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation-AMLRDC-shall not recommend to the Minister a change in the research component of the livestock slaughter levy unless its proposal has been endorsed by an annual general meeting of the Corporation. As explained in my second reading speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill, one of the purposes of the AGM is to give members of the industry the opportunity to debate and vote on proposals to alter livestock slaughter levies. The Bill also deals with the situation where a variation of the livestock slaughter levy is considered necessary by the Corporation before the first AGM is held. The Bill provides that in this event the Corporation shall consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, the Council of Australian Public Abattoir Authorities and the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia before any recommendations for a change is made to the Minister. The Bill will also amalgamate that component of the levy which raises funds to finance the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's special meat processing industry research with the general meat industry research component of the levy. As the AMLRDC is to be responsible for determining expenditure between individual research and development projects on the basis of priorities it identifies, it is no longer appropriate to set aside part of livestock slaughter levy collections to fund research into meat processing by CSIRO. The Bill also contains provision for an increase in the maximum rates for the research component of the slaughter levy and the total of the research and AMLC components of the levy. The operative rates of the levy for both AMLC and research purposes have recently been increased and in most cases are now at or very close to the maximum levels allowed by legislation. With the Government's decision to increase the maximum level of its matching contribution for rural research over the next five years up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production, it is likely the industry will be encouraged to raise its contributions. The new maximum rates provided in the Bill have been set at a level which should avoid the need for further amendments for some years hence. The operative rates of levy are prescribed by regulation under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 so this Bill will have no direct financial impact on Government expenditure or receipts. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985, is to amend the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 to be consistent with the changed provisions for future meat and livestock research and development. The Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 imposes a charge on the export of livestock. Part of the charge funds the industry's contribution for research and development. The Bill provides that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation-AMLRDC-shall not recommend to the Minister a change in the research component of the live-stock export charge unless its proposal has been endorsed by an annual general meeting of the Corporation. As explained in my second reading speech on the AMLRDC Bill, one of the purposes of the AGM is to give members of the industry the opportunity to debate and vote on proposals to alter livestock export charges. The Bill also deals with the situation where a variation of the livestock export charge is considered necessary by the Corporation before the first AGM is held. The Bill provides that in this event the Corporation shall consult with the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Livestock Exporters' Association before any recommendation for a change is made to the Minister. The Bill also contains provision for an increase in the prescribed maximum rates for the research component of the export charge and the total of the research and AMLC components of the charge. The operative rates of the export charge for both AMLC and research purposes have recently been increased and in most cases are now at or very close to the maximum levels allowed by legislation. With the Government's decision to increase the maximum level of its matching contributions for rural research over the next five years up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production, it is likely the industry will be encouraged to raise its contributions. The new maximum rates provided in the Bill have been set at a level which should avoid the need for further amendments for some years hence. The operative rates of charge are prescribed by regulation under the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 so this Bill will have no direct financial impact on Government expenditure or receipts. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of this legislation, in introducing it, which will provide a statutory basis for the involvement of the Commonwealth in soil conservation. It has long been a belief of mine that the Commonwealth has an important role to play in actively encouraging and co-ordinating the conservation of our land resources. In the long term it is the capacity of these resources to sustain use which will determine the well being of our primary industries. This Bill will allow for the provision of financial assistance for soil conservation projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, by the States, or by individuals and non-government organisations. It also provides for a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Minister concerning the allocation of financial assistance and the Commonwealth's role in soil conservation in general. The problems of land degradation in Australia are extremely severe and costly. There can be no doubting the seriousness of the problem. Our country is not well endowed with land resources, at least not from an agricultural perspective. Our soils are fragile and limited. It is our responsibility to husband these scarce resources in a manner that reflects the fact that they are finite and cannot be taken for granted. Yet the damage is already widespread. Erosion, salinity and tree decline are afflicting over half of all agricultural land and poisoning waterways in this country. Regardless of the historical reasons for the loss of this most vital resource, it is of the utmost importance that the pattern be halted and prevented from recurring in the future. Furthermore, wherever possible, attempts should be made to restore degraded land. There is already a strong awareness in all sectors of the community that we have reached a critical point in the process. Should land degradation continue at the level experienced in the past, there is no doubt that the longer term economic welfare of this nation will be placed at grave risk. This Government recognises the problem as one of the most important, if not the most important, in the natural resources area and one which is clearly beyond the resources of State governments alone to tackle effectively. The national dimension of the problem calls for an adequate response by the Commonwealth in the interests of the long term welfare of the nation. This Government has a longstanding commitment to safeguard the nation's agricultural resources. Since attaining office we have moved quickly to fulfil this commitment. In fulfilment of one of its major pre-election agricultural policies, the Government established the national soil conservation program. I would like to take this opportunity briefly to discuss this initiative. The program aims to develop and implement national policies for the rehabilitation and sustainable utilisation of the nation's soil and land resources. In essence, this is being done by enhancing the expertise and administrative authority already available in the States and local governments and by encouraging the efforts of farmers and the general community. The program's philosophy is consistent with that of the national conservation strategy, namely, that Australia should maintain the essential ecological and life-support systems, such as soil regeneration and protection, on which human survival and development depend. As such, the program represents a major practical attempt to achieve objectives set by the national conservation strategy. The national soil conservation program is not just concerned with providing funding to other bodies to spend on soil conservation. It embodies its own policies and philosophy which seek to provide a national approach to combating land degradation in Australia. It recognises the basic interdependence of soil, water and vegetation and the role each plays in land stability. Land is perceived as a complex entity made up of each of these resources and the interactions between them. It also emphasises a preventative rather than a corrective approach. The program is based on five major objectives: (i) That all lands in Australia be used within their capability; (ii) That land capability assessment and whole catchment/regional land management concepts be used as a basis for land planning; (iii) that all land users and levels of Government meet their respective responsibilities in achieving soil conservation; (iv) that effective co-operation and co-ordination occur between all sectors of the community, disciplines and agencies involved in the use and management of land and water resources; and (v) that the whole community adopt a land conservation ethic. These objectives provide the national soil conservation program with its direction and act as a guide in project selection. They are not set in concrete and may change as the program develops and progress is made. I am pleased to be able to report that the program has received a high level of support from the public. This support has translated into active co-operation from primary producers, conservation groups, State and local governments, as well as academics and researchers. A major task of the program is to continue to raise the level of public awareness about this often insidious problem of land degradation. Of course it is in the interests of all Australians that the damage caused by land degradation is minimised. Not only does it undermine productivity but also it results in severe off-site costs that are borne by the public at large. Nowhere is this more dramatically obvious than the lower reaches of the Murray-Darling system where water quality is often very poor as a result of erosion and salinisation occurring throughout the catchment. The Bill establishes a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee which is constituted as an expert and impartial body charged with several responsibilities. The main function of the Committee will be to provide advice to the Minister on projects to be funded under the national soil conservation program. It will also provide advice on priorities and strategies for activities by the Commonwealth relating to soil conservation. As such, it will allow the Commonwealth to have a co-ordinating function in soil conservation-not in competition with the States but complementing and co-ordinating efforts nationally. This Committee will provide an opportunity for non-government groups such as producer organisations and public interest groups to have an input into how the problem should be tackled by the Commonwealth. The Department of Primary Industry will, through appropriate processes, publicise the fact that applications may be made for financial assistance for proposed or existing soil conservation projects. The Committee will consider such applications and advise the Minister as to which candidate projects should be funded out of moneys appropriated under the Bill and on areas where soil conservation projects need to be commissioned. It will also make recommendations as to the terms and conditions that should apply to the agreements under which the assistance should be paid. This selection process would normally take place annually. The Soil Conservation Advisory Committee will also assess the success of projects funded by the Commonwealth and of the workings of the Act itself and will report through the Minister to the Parliament each year. The total appropriation under the Bill, as I have already stated, is not fixed at any level. While it would be true to say that it would be almost impossible to provide too much support for soil conservation, I would like to make it clear that the Bill is not an attempt to have the Commonwealth shoulder the entire responsibility for soil conservation. This is neither possible nor desirable. The Commonwealth, by establishment of the national soil conservation program and by providing financial assistance under this Bill, is seeking to act as a catalyst to stimulate improved soil conservation by those with more direct responsibility in this area. The Bill provides that separate appropriations be made for the States, for Commonwealth departments and for other persons, such as research or education bodies, tertiary institutions, or private companies or researchers. The relative size of the three appropriations will reflect the general capacity of each sector to contribute to the national soil conservation effort and the probability therefore is that the States will be the major and the Commonwealth the minor recipients, with the other group falling between. Funds appropriated for use by organisations and individuals will be paid into a trust account to be known as the National Soil Conservation Program Fund. Payments for projects, other than State or Commonwealth projects, will be made from this fund. These projects will be more numerous and usually smaller than State or Commonwealth projects. Experience has shown that in such cases the flexibility offered by a trust account is necessary to ensure efficient use of the Budget allocation. I must admit that it is not absolutely necessary to have a trust account, but that did become the very basis for this piece of legislation. This legislation has been paid the supreme accolade of being fought by Department of Finance officials all the way down the line. I insisted that there be legislation so that future razor gangs and fiscal fiends do not get away with it easily. Individuals and organisations may not always be able to conveniently operate in conformity with the budget cycle while at the same time efficiently managing a project. For example, a project undertaken by an academic institution will usually operate on a calendar year, not on a financial year basis. The fund will also serve as a repository for gifts and bequests where appropriate and for paying the expenses of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. The Bill provides that financial assistance be subject to a number of conditions and that each project further be subject to an agreement. The conditions specified in the Bill relate generally to accountability for funds, observance of the agreement, repayment or withholding of funds where there has been misuse or error in the conduct of the project or the handling of funds, provision of records and reports, and the fate of revenue or windfalls derived by the recipient of assistance. In short, the Bill provides for the sort of responsible control that would be expected where government expenditure is being incurred. The agreements between the Commonwealth and those undertaking projects with the use of financial assistance provided under the Bill will be more specific documents which, in addition to containing any of the conditions set out in the Bill, will specify the financial assistance to be provided and describe the purpose and nature of the project in question. I should like to make it clear that the soil conservation projects that can qualify for financial assistance under the Bill are not limited to actual construction works and field activities. Soil conservation consists of prevention as well as correction, and projects involving education, publications, training, demonstrations and research will all be considered by the Advisory Committee. Indeed, given that conservation is a national issue and that the Commonwealth is able to bring a perspective that is not always available to the States, I expect that the Bill will prove particularly effective in this regard. It is difficult to provide any quantifiable financial impact of the Bill. The Commonwealth has made $4m available to the national soil conservation program in the current financial year but I have earlier indicated that there is no fixed appropriation under the Bill. Administrative costs within the Department are currently in the order of $180,000 a year, about half of which includes the services of officers seconded from State soil conservation services to assist in the development of the national soil conservation program. When these secondments are terminated in about two years, the cost will therefore be approximately halved. However, with the passage of this Bill, the expenses and allowances of the Advisory Committee-as determined by the Remunerations Tribunal-will have to be met. It is estimated therefore that administrative costs to the Commonwealth will eventually settle at about $120,000 per annum and that this will not vary significantly even if the amount of financial assistance for soil conservation were to be considerably increased, which we all hope for. On the positive side, the benefits of the national soil conservation program are expected to be considerable. It is not possible to predict a likely figure for the savings in terms of future productivity and reduced off-site costs, but they are certain to exceed greatly any outlay by the Commonwealth. Before concluding this speech, I would like to emphasise the Commonwealth's commitment to soil conservation and the place of this Bill within that overall commitment. Historically, the Commonwealth Government's involvement in soil conservation has been on an in and out basis. The previous Government opted out of soil conservation completely so that at the time the present Government took office there was no involvement at all. This Government turned around that disastrous decision and established the national soil conservation program. The national soil conservation program, as I have explained, has the overall aim of ensuring that the use of our land resources takes places on a sustainable basis. The Bill, limited as it is to the provision of financial assistance, is only a part-albeit a significant part-of the Government's commitment. This significance extends beyond the actual benefit that will accrue from projects undertaken by means of financial assistance provided under the Bill. The previous Government justified its dilatory attitude to soil conservation on the grounds that because the direct constitutional responsibility for land use rests with the States, the Commonwealth need not become involved. However, it is now obvious that the magnitude of the land degradation problem is such that a national perspective must be obtained with the Federal Government providing a means of co-ordinating this perspective, as well as making its own direct contribution to soil conservation. This Bill is one means or ensuring this. If future governments refuse to commit funds to soil conservation, this can no longer occur by convenient administrative measures; it will require a conscious and public act not to appropriate moneys under the Bill. Any failure by future governments to appropriate funds will be explicitly reflected in the annual report of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. The Bill is therefore explicit and enduring evidence of this Government's commitment to the national soil conservation program and to the fight against land degradation. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to continue bounty assistance to the industry producing injection-moulding machines for the production of plastic goods and parts for such machines for a further four years. The bounty will be paid at the rate of 20 per cent of value added in the first and second years, reducing to 10 per cent of the value added in the third and fourth years. Since 23 May 1979, local production of the machines and parts therefor has been assisted by a 15 per cent duty and a phasing bounty which was to have expired in May 1984. In January 1983, following representations by the remaining local manufacturers, Johns Consolidated Ltd and Battenfeld (Aust) Pty Ltd, the industry was referred to the Temporary Assistance Authority-the TAA-which concluded that short term assistance was not justified. However, in view of the performance of the local industry, the Government decided that an immediate review of long term assistance arrangements was necessary. A reference was sent to the Industries Assistance Commission on 30 June 1983 seeking a report on or before 29 February 1984 on what long term assistance arrangements should be provided to the industry. Further, in view of an earlier submission to the TAA by the Department of Defence, in which that Department expressed concern at a situation where Australia's injection-moulding machine manufacturing capacity might disappear, the Commission was asked to provide additional advice on the assistance required should the Government decide to maintain the industry on defence strategic grounds. Pending the completion and consideration of the Commission's report, the Government also decided that short term assistance was required and proposed that temporary assistance by way of an additional bounty be paid to the industry from 10 June 1983 until 22 November 1984. The Commission presented its report to the Government on 28 February 1984. In its report the IAC commented that the Australian market for injection-moulding machines expanded by 50 per cent between 1979-80 and 1981-82, but in 1982-83 fell back to about the level existing in 1979-80. Local production of injection-moulding machines fell by some 65 per cent in the four years to 1982-83, due mainly to the demise of Johns Consolidated Ltd and to an increase in imports. The Commission further stated that in terms of current dollars, total competitive imports increased by over 100 per cent in 1981-82 relative to the previous two years, and although imports declined in 1982-83, the level was still double that observed in 1979-80. The Commission also stated that there had been considerable changes in the industry since 1979 and that these had resulted in the only remaining local manufacturer, Battenfeld, maintaining market share but with relatively low levels of profitability. The Commission reported that the adjustment difficulties associated with the quite significant reductions in assistance since 1979 had been exacerbated by the difficult economic conditions that characterised the early 1980s. This factor, combined with evidence suggesting that local manufacturers could eventually be competitive with tariff-only assistance and the fact that with assistance of this order local production could be regarded as relatively economically efficient, influenced the Commission to recommend further assistance to facilitate adjustment to the long term rate of 15 per cent. To minimise the direct cost of assistance to user industries and to facilitate adjustment to the long-term rate, the Commission recommended additional assistance by way of a bounty. The level of bounty assistance requested by Battenfeld was slightly higher than the level recommended by the Commission. However, the Commission considered that assistance at the level recommended would provide Battenfeld with the opportunity to restructure its operations, while at the same time not shield it from the pressure to adjust to the relatively low long term tariff rate. The Commission also concluded that no additional assistance would be necessary to maintain the industry on defence strategic grounds. On 10 October 1984 the Government announced it had accepted the Commission's recommendations that bounty assistance to the industry be continued for four years and that the long term duty rate of 15 per cent continue to apply. This Bill will provide over the next four years a bounty equal to 20 per cent of value added in the first two years and 10 per cent in the third and fourth years, with an upper limit of $0.6m per year for the first two years and $0.4m for the remaining two years. The Bill allows the upper limit to be varied in a particular year to cover unforeseen circumstances provided the total bounty does not exceed $2m over the four-year period. The Government proposes to monitor closely the performance of Battenfeld to ensure that the intent of the assistance arrangements is achieved and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce will report to the Minister annually in this regard. Finally, the Bill includes a number of provisions in Part III which are designed to update the administrative provisions in the existing Act. These provisions are modelled on a number of provisions in recent bounty Acts. Financial Impact Statement: The cost of bounty assistance between 10 October 1984 and 9 October 1988 will not exceed $2m. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.53) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a submarine escape training facility, HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia The proposed work is for the construction of a simulated submarine environment with design aspects representative of those in present and future Australian submarines. These works will be constructed within a multi-level reinforced concrete building containing a training tank, shallow training module, auxiliary equipment and all support and building services. The site is Commonwealth-owned and will be within the secure area of HMAS Stirling. The work proposed under this submission comprises: A submarine escape training tank incorporating a submarine escape module; a shallow training module; support services for the submarine, escape training tank and shallow training module; an eight-level reinforced concrete building to house the tank, associated teaching areas and support services; and site works, building and engineering services. The limit of cost of the proposed works is $10m at August 1984 prices. With adjustment for cost escalation, due to increases in building industry prices, the current estimate is $10.3m at February 1985 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.55) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, I welcome the motion. It is particularly appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you as member for Curtin, in Western Australia, are in the chair as this motion goes through. I have a particular involvement in the matter extending over many years of service in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. Therefore, the motion is a matter of considerable interest. It is a good project and I wish it success. A sum of $10.3m is a substantial contribution. The Opposition looks forward to hearing the details of the evidence placed before the Public Works Committee and also to receiving its report, at which time the matter will be more fully debated in this House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Adermann, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Kent, Dr Klugman, Mr Lindsay and Mr Maher be members of the Committee of Members' Interests. Debate resumed. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(4.58) —Before the debate on the Sugar Agreement Bill was interrupted, I told the House that the greater number of workers in the sugar industry were members of the Australian Workers Union. I called on that union and other unions whose members inevitably will be affected to put the well-being of their members before any misguided party political subjugation of their duty to members. I now call on those unions to join with the sugar growers and millers in this hour of need to act in concert for the common fight for the common good of their communities. Not to do so now, with great urgency, will be a denial of meaningful representation on behalf of union members. If I am wrong in my assessment indicating a grave situation; if the sugar millers are wrong; if all the indicators and forecasts suggesting things are going to get worse before there is a revival in the sugar industry are wrong; if the growing unemployment statistics in sugar-producing areas are wrong; if, despite all the portents of impending disaster, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) knows better; if the Hawke Government believes the position is not critical, that no threat exists to the economies and infrastructures of the sugar towns and cities along the eastern seaboard from far north Queensland to northern New South, that the internal industry review cannot be undertaken and a restructuring effected for profitability before a collapse in the sugar industry-let the Minister for Primary Industry or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) inform this House by what criteria the Government refuses to act in the interests of all people dependent on the sugar industry. To say that government action will depend on the conclusions reached by the internal review of the sugar industry is not satisfactory when it is clear that a contingency government plan should be readied in case more urgent action is required should a total collapse become imminent. If, under any circumstance, this Government will not be prepared to initiate an emergency support plan, let the Prime Minister so acknowledge it and stop what then must be seen as a pretext of concern engendering misplaced trust in an uncaring and short sighted government. Any support given to the sugar industry is an investment promising a continuing return to Australia. Mr Fred Soper of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, in his address to the recent conference of that organisation, said: Sugar exports from the cane growing industry earn $400m to $800m a year for Australia. That we all know. But the flow-on, or multiplier effect, creates jobs throughout the economy in transport, milling, manufacturing, shipping and other service and support industries. If we used the 'three to one' multiplier formula adopted by the National Farmers Federation for determining the total value of an industry, we would see the real value of cane growing somewhere between two and three billion dollars a year. Like Mr Soper and his growers, we too are asking the Government to help save an industry which is a vital part of the economy, a major creator of employment and a major earner of export income operating competitively in international markets. Earlier today, the Minister for Primary Industry drew to the attention of this House a matter relating to the proposed United States Farm Bill. One of the main reasons for this Bill being introduced was the European Economic Community's unyielding response to export-dependent industries throughout the world to a request to stop dumping subsidised produce on the world market. Their response has prompted this move by the United States which, in the short term, could further disrupt Australian exports unless the United States action forces a return to sane marketing procedures. The proposed United States Farm Bill, which has been introduced to Congress, has the potential to alter radically world agricultural markets. The Bill plans to deregulate American agriculture and concentrate on a more export-oriented market approach. This proposal holds many repercussions for Australian Primary exports, including sugar. The Bill has come about because the Americans had become fed up with watching the European Economic Community steal markets from the United States and Third World countries, with the EEC taxpayers subsidising the exported primary produce. The American Administration has given notice that it is prepared to start an all-out trade war with the EEC to counteract its dumping by matching subsidised prices even if world market prices are lower than United States production prices. It will offer attractive credit terms to buying countries and will even accept the soft currency of the Third World countries. With this threat, hopefully, the EEC will show some sanity and will at least impose production quotas. The EEC is subsidising mainly inefficient and uncompetitive producers. In closing, I say to this House and especially to members of the Government that they must act to provide support for the Australian sugar industry before the tragic and irreversible collapse of the communities totally dependent on the production of sugar. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.05) —I rise to make a plea to the Government in regard to the greatest crisis in the long history of the Australian sugar industry. I speak in support of what has been said today in this House by so many of my colleagues. We are dealing with a Bill which is pertinent to the pricing of sugar in Australia. The Sugar Agreement Bill addresses the domestic price issue and the important issue of maintenance of control over imports of sugar. The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), draws attention in a very pertinent way to the crisis to which I referred. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has not been present in the House for most of the debate. It is pleasing to see that he is back here at this juncture. I hope that, in addressing the House at the end of this debate, he will give some indication of the progress being made by his Government in dealing with the very crucial situation facing the Australian sugar industry. The question is: What will the Federal Government do to assist the industry at this time? Historically, assistance for the surgar industry has been provided with a view to cushioning problems and to making it possible for the industry to adjust to international marketing difficulties. At other times provisions have been made to solve some internal difficulties within the Australian sugar growing industry. The historic success of the efforts of past governments to assist this industry has set a pattern that I believe demonstrates what can be done through effective co-operation on the part of the Federal and State governments and the sugar industry. The efficiency of this industry surpasses that of any other primary industry in Australia and is perhaps a model for primary industries around the world. This is so because there has been an adherence to a free enterprise approach within the industry towards its management. I refer to management of quotas on production, management of mill handling and, in particular, the management by the Queensland Sugar Board across the whole spectrum relating to each year's product, and the proper management and handling for sale of that product, not only domestically but also on the export market. This has occurred as I mentioned earlier, as a consequence of the historical development of a great industry in Australia. The success of the industry has been, part and parcel, the result of negotiations frequently carried out by the Federal Government of the day on international marketing and international sugar agreements, which tragically do not exist at the moment. Those negotiations have made it possible for the industry to be one of our biggest export contributors over so many years. The last major crisis, which approached the proportion of the present crisis but was not so great, occurred in 1964. At that time confidence in the industry had been almost totally lost. There was a pattern of confusion similar to that which exists today regarding how the problem could be solved. There was pessimism of a similar nature in respect of pricing, particularly on the export market, of sugar produced in the 1964-66 triennium. The Federal Government of the day, which was of a different political persuasion to the present Government-I refer to the then Liberal-Country Party Government-put forward constructive propositions. It negotiated with the industry. It looked a the bleak outlook but said: 'Let us not despair. Let us take action'. At that time the pundits, led by Mr Rex Patterson, who was then a member of this House and whose name was mentioned earlier today, were all for control of the industry and for reducing productivity, acreages and quotas. A report at that time suggested that this ought to be done. I offer a warning to the Minister for Primary Industry. Should he follow that course and listen to the bureaucrats in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and certain bureaucrats in his own Department who are hell bent on reducing the productivity of this country's sugar industry, it will be a disaster for the industry and a disaster for primary industry generally in Australia. We can bet our lives that that kind of contraction-I shudder at words I heard from both sides today suggesting that people should be eased out of the industry-will wreck this industry, and do not want to see that happen. In 1964 it was good enough for the Government of the day to ensure that funds flowed to the sugar pool to assist producers in the critical year 1964-65. There was pessimism. There were those who said: 'This won't do any good because the price won't rise. We'll face further difficulties at the end of that period and onwards'. I am appalled at the thought that we are so naive that we will merely act upon predictions of a price fall in the immediate year and two years ahead, as has been mentioned in this House today. If we are so pessimistic about this industry, what about all our other industries? One could make similar gloomy predictions about every primary industry. Let us take other industries, such as the manufacturing industries. Let us look at the position of the steel industry only a short time ago. Many economists said that Australia should not have a steel industry. They said that we did not have the equipment, that the industry had run down and needed to look at the reality of the situation, that we could not be competitive with the rest of the world. The largest public company in Australia said no to that philosophy. It came to this Government, the Government that sits on the treasury bench today, and put its case. It frightened the Government into realising that it needed support, and it got it. I hope that every supporter of the sugar industry in Australia will fight in the same way to get immediate action from this Government that is so reticent at present and from this Minister who made promises in the last election, who has done very little since that time to honour those promises and who has virtually handed over the negotiating to the Prime Minister. I wonder what that is all about. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry to be the front runner in this matter. I hope that on 1 April next some reality will be seen in this very vital issue. Let there be no illusions about who the beneficiaries will be. The beneficiaries will be the entire Australian community. This industry is a large industry. If it is not assisted the effect on employment and on many major cities and towns will be devastating. If we look merely at the requirements for the year ahead we find that there are three essentials. We must ensure that the next crop goes in, that the farmer has the wherewithal to make it possible for his plantings to take place. That means an outlay-in many instances an outlay which is a financial drain that cannot be coped with at present. The financial institutions are concerned, the growers are concerned and the mills are concerned. It is a closely-knit operation. Earlier today a new member of this House, prominent in the Australian Labor Party, criticised what he described as wealthy sugar growers and wealthy mills. What sheer rubbish. It is a shocking indictment of his Party and himself that he could make such a claim. It shows just what poor debate must take place within the ALP on this major issue. Let us take the second important consideration. Are we to reduce our productivity until there is adjustment on a world basis or are we able to keep pace with supply through the storage of sugar, an option which is unique to this industry? If we have an over-supply of meat, what do we do with it? If we have an over-supply of perishables in so many other primary industries, what do we do with it? In the case of sugar, one can at least carry forward stocks. In the last decade our storage capacity for sugar has been increased and our handling facilities for sugar have been updated. Perhaps there is a need for some rationalisation of mill throughput, but that rationalisation is currently taking place anyway. There is very little need to look to the grower aspect in terms of reducing the availability of opportunities for the sugar producer himself. Whilst some producers in some areas face immediate difficulties, they would be able to survive on a base price of around $240 a tonne which has been mentioned. If there are difficulties in particular regions or zones, they should be within the province of the State governments concerned-the governments of ueensland and New South Wales. I speak, of course, with particular interest in the industry in New South Wales. Perhaps its production, relative to that of Queensland, represents a small proportion of total Australian production. It is, nevertheless, a very important sector of the entire industry. It is important to a very big region of northern New South Wales. It may be news to some honourable members who were critical in the debate earlier today that all the mills in New South Wales are owned by a growers co-operative. There is no wealthy milling operation in the State of New South Wales. Likewise, most of the producers are small producers. There are no wealthy sugar producers in New South Wales. What we have is a group of growers and sugar workers in this State who are depending on some action by both the Federal and State governments. Let me make one important point as far as New South Wales is concerned. During the present off-season the sugar mills are closed. A great number of people who normally would be engaged on maintenance within those mills have been stood down for up to three or four months. This has a tremendous impact on the employees and on the immediate communities in which they live. In addition, the growers are skating on what might be described as thin ice in respect of their program of sugar growing for the coming season. They are depending on some action by the Federal Government and by the State Government of New South Wales. A request has been made to the New South Wales Government to assist the sugar milling co-operative. It would be fair and reasonable for that kind of support to come from the New South Wales government. Similar action has been taken in respect of some co-operatives in Queensland. My colleagues from as far north as the electorate of Kennedy, which is a big sugar-growing area, and others who have been mentioned earlier in this debate, from right down the Queensland coast have an interest in this matter. They have a practical understanding of what has been done by the Queensland Government to assist co-operative mills in Queensland. We acknowledge that that section of the problem is one with which State governments can assist. What State governments are saying, quite correctly, is that the real assistance for the grower must come from the Federal Government. I put it to the Minister for Primary Industry and to the Government of which he is a member that some action should be taken immediately. There has been a suggestion that it would require an infusion of at least $80m into the sugar pool. If the excuse is that budgetary reasons prevent that being just a generous grant put forward to the industry at this time; there is a very serious alternative that can be considered. That alternative is simply that a loan be made, as occurred in 1964. If the Government wants to be generous, let it carry some of the interest costs. Let it be realistic in that regard. If finance is allowed to flow into the sugar pools on the basis of what has occurred in the past, the precedent has been set. No doubt the fear being expressed is that next year it will be worse, and the year after it will be worse again. Governments take many risks. Governments of the past have taken many risks. Governments in the future will take many risks. Let us take a risk on the sugar industry and give it some financial assistance at this critical time-not in six months, 12 months or 18 months, and certainly not at the end of the long haul of some review of the industry's structure, because that would be far too late. The significant requirement is action now because, like any other business, if one lets the finances run down beyond a point of redemption, the task is too big, the damage is too great and the rescue processes are too difficult. In comparison with many other commitments of this Government, it would be a very small and negligible approach financially to assist this industry at this time. I am sure that the confidence that it would be able to generate would not be restricted merely to what would be the consequence for the sugar grower, the co-operative mills and other mills that have financial difficulties. It would be the means of avoiding a further growth in outlay in respect of unemployment benefits and financial commitments that would arise in the communities of the sugar growing areas of Australia. If one applies the most simple of analogies in respect of the economics of it all, the basis of support of this kind is an insurance against something that could be far worse in a very short time if action is not taken. I make that appeal particularly in respect of my own electorate of Page in northern New South Wales, the electorate of Richmond, whose member spoke earlier today, and, of course, the electorates of my colleagues from the State of Queensland. This industry is too important to be sacrificed at this time by a lethargic government and by a Minister who is prone to listen to bureaucrats and to economists who do not have a practical understanding and who, I fear, may not have the kind of sympathy that in the past has paid off when it has come to support of a major primary industry. I conclude by saying that the challenge is not so great comparative to other challenges which this nation faces at present. What is required is reality on the part of the Minister. I hope that this afternoon he will give some indication of the sympathy on the part of the Government and himself that is long overdue in this important issue. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.13) —I was not able to participate in the debate or listen to it earlier because Cabinet met this morning. The Sugar Agreement Bill is a simple Bill. It is about the domestic price of sugar, the Sugar Agreement and the import embargo. The Government has provided members of the House with an opportunity to discuss this industry and to represent their electorates. The debate has been a lot wider than the Bill itself. The reason why people have been wanting to speak so much on this industry is that the industry is in trouble. It has been in trouble for the past three or four years. The only action taken by the previous Government was to have two reports compiled by the Industries Assistance Commission. It resisted any move at that time to changes the domestic price formula, which would have given the industry more funds. We have taken the opportunity to give a better price formula to the industry so that there is at least some assistance from the domestic price. The solutions to this industry are all about politics. They are all about dollars and the best way to spend those dollars, and that is to get a package. One of the big problems is that the difference between the industry now and 20 years ago is the level of export exposure. This industry now sells about 80 per cent of its production on the export market, whereas back in the 1960s it was far less. It is not just for the Commonwealth Government to put money into this industry. The Queensland Government also has a capacity to put money into this industry if it so chooses and it has been meeting some of the needs of the industry. A government that can spend $60m on racecourses also has a capacity to spend money on an industry that is in trouble. There are many differences between the situation now and 20 years ago. The major problem is in respect of the European Community. The EC grows beet sugar, which is a one year crop. Australia grows cane sugar, which is a three to four year crop. The situation has changed dramatically with the EC. In 1977, when the EC was not a member of the International Sugar Agreement, it was a net importer of sugar. It has now moved to being a net exporter, and its actions and the actions of other countries in expanding production and also the policies of the United States, which has encouraged the development of alternative sweeteners, have fundamentally changed the world sugar market. There is also the health aspect. The development of alternative sweeteners, as well as the capacity of the EC to expand production at any time, is the major problem facing this industry. I would like to concentrate for a few moments on the EC because the EC has been very assiduous in spreading the story that it was Australia that sabotaged the International Sugar Agreement. I took part in the ISA talks over two years and kept in contact with the Department of Trade officials and the Minister for Trade, the Honourable Lionel Bowen, right through that period. It was not the case that Australia sabotaged those ISA talks because it was only going to be given a reference export availability of 2.6 million tonnes and not 2.688 million tonnes. The whole problem was that the EC had fundamentally corrupted the world sugar market with a massive stock overhang. It wanted a reference export availability of 5.4 million tonnes, which was its record export production. When the Chairman of the ISA talks under the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development placed on the table a chart of reference export availabilities giving the EC 4.9 million tonnes, it was impossible for the EC to go below that figure, not that I think there was any desire of the EC to go below that figure. The talks were sabotaged then. Australia would have accepted an agreement with economic provisions that would have worked, but the member countries, the countries participating in those talks, could not even agree on reference export availabilities. In other words, we did not have agreement on what the security stock level should be, what the initial stock holding should be and what the price bans would be for stocking and destocking. We did not have any agreement on the basis of criteria for gaining those reference export availabilities in terms of performance. If Australia had accepted 2.6 million tonnes, it would then have been subject to the salami strategy and would have had no provisions in an International Sugar Agreement which would have done anything at all to lift the price. That is the basic reason why Australia was not prepared to go along, once that figure had been put on the table by the Chairman and the EC was no longer in a position to negotiate. As all honourable members know, in dealing with the EC it is impossible to find the decision point. The officials buck pass in terms of the Commission to the member states, and back and forth it goes. It is very difficult to get the EC in a situation where it negotiates in terms that we understand. It only has positions. The United States is one of our major markets. We now have a quota of 8.3 per cent of the available import market. That has gone down from nearly 5 million tonnes in 1979 to an estimated 2 million tonnes in 1985. Because Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and some of these big users of sugar have now transferred to high fructose corn syrup, and Aspartain as a chemical derivative is available as a sweetener and has passed relevant laws in the United States, there is a long term problem in the developed countries with respect to alternative sweeteners. In terms of the debate, there were quite a few calls for a bipartisan approach-I welcome that-from members of the Opposition. I welcome the constructive remarks made by some members of the Opposition and I also welcome some of the constructive remarks made by honourable members on my own side. The big problem with a bipartisan approach is that basically we get knocked by the Queensland Government. There is a problem in dealing with the politics of this industry. It is a proud, independent industry. It has four major organisations and is subject to a set of complex regulations and laws and two boards which are controlled by the Queensland Government. Quite frankly, it is an industry which has not been used to dealing with government. I agree with the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) that there needs to be a tripartite approach on this-that is, the two governments, plus the New South Wales Government and the industry-so that we can get down to working out which way a package of measures should go. Last December the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to the Premier suggesting that there be a joint task force. We hoped that this would be agreeable to the Premier but there have been intimations that Queensland is not really interested in having such a task force of officials. It has now been agreed that a meeting will take place on 1 April. I simply hope that we can get into a working situation with the Queensland Government so that we can develop a package of measures that may meet some of the needs of this industry. I originally requested such a move in 1984 when I addressed the Queensland cane growers annual conference. I noted that in debate the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) said that I did not attend the other meeting. That was due to the fact that I was overseas. Three days before that meeting I addressed the proprietary millers on the Government's position. Today there have been calls, again, for across the board assistance. The Commonwealth Government has indicated on many occasions that it is opposed to across the board assistance. It is not just as easy as it was in 1964-65 when some money was given to the industry by way of a loan, which was repaid. We know that the best way to give assistance to this industry, in terms of getting the money back by way of a loan, is to put it into the No. 1 pool. But there is not much sense in giving this industry a loan because the industry has no capacity to repay it. There is not much sense in giving individual growers carry-on finance. The problem which the Commonwealth Government has with across the board assistance is that it is not needs based, that it masks market reality and that it goes to growers and millers alike. Some co-operative millers are in a far different situation from that of proprietary millers. I am not trying to divide and rule by that device, but the assistance does go to growers and millers alike. About 37 per cent of any funds would go to the mills. It has been estimated that the industry now needs at least $80m a year, possibly expanding if the world sugar situation and market price do not pick up over the next two, three or four years. Even if $80m were pumped in across the board the average producer would receive about $7,000 a year. If it were targeted to growers only, the average grower would receive about $13,000 a year. Certainly that would be an income boost to the growers. The problem with that approach is that all growers have an income problem, but 15 per cent have a really big difficulty with respect to debt. Probably 3 to 5 per cent of growers are in an irretrievable situation. I would suggest that about 80 per cent of the industry is in a bad situation but it is no worse than that which some of the other primary industries in this country have been in through the various cycles. The really big problem coming up for the sugar industry is that of long term contracts and their expiry. That is why, although the industry is conducting a review of its own marketing mechanisms, structures and production details, there is no sense in that going right through into 1987. There is a very big concern in the Government that the industry review is well and good, but if it is going to take until 1987 for the industry to reach some consensus about what can be done to some of its structures I think that will be far too late. Other parts of the debate have focused on assistance measures. The problem and the challenge is to get a package. As I said, the industry is having difficulty in getting consensus about which way it should go. There have been some moves recently with respect to some of the mechanisms within the industry. We think there are other areas that could be enhanced if the Queensland Government could meet with the Commonwealth and explore those issues. The problem-this gets to the politics of the industry-is that there are different views on different issues because there are different interests between the groups involved in the industry. I believe we need to sort out those issues. As I have said, the Prime Minister has offered Commonwealth assistance in the development of this package. I make it quite clear that the Commonwealth's view is that a package of measures needs to be developed. Quite frankly, there are lots of needs in the industry. There are research needs, the problems of the super-wet belt and farm size in some areas, inadequate irrigation in other areas and a whole range of problems. This whole idea of across the board assistance, to my mind, simply will not meet the needs of this industry. It is not as if the industry is facing a one-year or two-year problem; it is facing a long term problem. There has been discussion about a sugar summit. The meeting on 1 April is not a summit. I have heard the definition that a summit is any meeting that the Prime Minister attends. But this is a meeting to explore government co-operation so that meaningful assistance can be developed between the governments. It will be a working meeting. It is not as if it will be between, for instance, President Reagan and Premier Chernenko, with all the attendant summitry that goes with that, people with set positions. It will be a working meeting to see what can be done to develop a package of measures such that the Commonwealth is not seen as imposing measures only to get its head kicked in by either the Queensland Government or the industry itself. A lot of points were canvassed by the Opposition speakers. I do not have time to address them all. A bit of debate focused on who has paid in the most money. I have never really wanted to entertain debate on all of that. When we provided some $22m by way of assistance to the industry, or $20m to Queensland-between the two governments; $10m each-for carry-on assistance, by 30 June last year only $14.74m had been spent. Since 30 June 1984 a further $15.26m has been made available, but from that point on both governments agreed-certainly the Rural Reconstruction Board in Queensland agreed-that debt reconstruction rather than carry-on finance is the more desirable way of helping the industry. Carry-on finance simply means that there is money to be paid back. Debt reconstruction at leasts spreads out the debt. There are some people with massive debt situations whom I do not think any government can assist. So far, other financial agencies have been backing farms which are considered to have long term viability. I have held discussions with the banks, and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia on that matter. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) said that I listen to bureaucrats in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I do not mind listening to the BAE on some subjects. I think that it would have been a good idea if the sugar industry had been surveyed by the BAE so that we would have figures available on that industry compared with other Australian rural industries. The attitude by Queensland has been to keep the Commonwealth out of this industry. That has been a problem in terms of the Commonwealth, as a government, coming to grips with this industry. Be that as it may, there is nothing to fear from people looking at an industry through some sort of economic microscope. That is not to say that I intend to take any notice necessarily of the BAE, the Industries Assistance Commission or any other government body. It is up to governments to make decisions and not to be told what to do by bureaucrats. I do not know why people fear objective economic examination. The bureaucrats in my Department have no particular position other than that they are pro primary industry and in favour of trying to reach solutions. That is their professional ethic. I could not say the same thing about some of the bureaucrats in other government departments, but that is another story. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said that I promised some measure of assistance and mentioned the Giru Mill. Again, I would like to nail that claim, not that that will stop members of the Opposition continuing to run the line if they want to do so. Key industry leaders were at a meeting which I anticipated would be attended by suppliers of the Giru Mill. So once more I sat down with them to go through all the problems of the industry. Of course, I welcomed the opportunity to do so at that fully open meeting. I tried to give them a bit of charitable advice in terms of their review and the problems they were having because they were still running with the line that underwriting was the solution to the industry's process problems. I went through all the technical problems of underwriting. Luckily, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), had already said quite accurately in Townsville that underwriting in itself was no absolute panacea for the industry. So I ran through Industries Assistance Commission formulas, Bureau of Agricultural Economics formulas, industry formulas and several formulas which were developed in my Department for underwriting. Those formulas, given the characteristics of this crop, showed that either there would be a massive payout or zilch payouts. In other words, the BAE and the IAC formulations, even in the last three years, would have each paid out on only one year. I told them that there were problems in respect of underwriting. I pointed out that another measure of general assistance used by the Commonwealth is stabilisation but that there is no capacity for the industry to contribute to a stabilisation fund at this stage. I also went through the whole question of subsidisation and the problems of attaching subsidies for reduction or in what form. However, I said to them that one approach could be some minimum reserve price mechanism. I pointed out, of course, that that was not the policy of the Government. However, I wanted them to understand that a formulation could be found that at least provided for an absolute bottom price to the industry and that it was for them to develop that formulation in terms of their own review. I would have liked to speak about other matters if I had the time to do so. Honourable members have touched on the problems of the mills. It is quite true that the mills have particular problems. I have already said that there is a great difference between, for example, the CSR mills, the co-operative mills and some of the smaller mills. I think it is quite apparent that one of the catalysts for change in this industry will be the mills themselves but I cannot predict when those changes will take place. It is pretty bad to approach the industry on the basis of everyone saying that mill X is the most likely to go. Where there are four or five mills in one regional area it is far better to approach the problem of working out which mill should go in terms of the lines going to the various mills and where the assignments are. That is something which has to be dealt with separately rather than simply by way of across the board assistance. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I am not inclined to make heavy political points. I resent some of the distortions that have been made by the Queensland Government on who has been putting in most dollars. I conclude by saying that it is not beyond the capacity of the Queensland Government to help more. I hope we will work together on a package of measures on 1 April. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hunt's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— 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.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Darling, E. E. McGauran, P. J.Hollis, C. Wilson, I. B. C.Dawkins, J. S. Fisher, P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. 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 19 March. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect in Australia to the Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages signed by Australia in July 1980. The Bill represents a significant step for Australia in that it is the first of the Hague conventions Australia has signed and will be the first to which Australia has given effect. In addition, the Bill proposes certain other amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 with which I will deal at a later stage. The Bill is, for the most part, substantially the same as that introduced last year. The Hague Convention For many years it has been recognised that marriage is such a fundamental and universal human institution that, wherever possible, a marriage celebrated in one country should be recognised as valid all over the world. Nevertheless, there are limits to the extent to which the policy of one country is acceptable in another. To reconcile these conflicting goals a complex set of rules has developed in the common law, governing recognition of marriages involving parties whose domicile is not Australia, or marriages celebrated outside Australia. In 1983, 35 per cent of all marriages taking place in Australia involved one party who had been born overseas. The common law rules as they now stand would refer the validity of those marriages where one party was still domiciled outside Australia, partly to the law of the domicile.If a marriage takes place overseas it might be necessary to refer to the law of a number of countries to determine its validity in Australia. The Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1976 finalised the Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages-the Hague Convention-to facilitate the recognition in one country of marriages solemnised in another country. Celebration of Marriages Chapter I of the Hague Convention deals with the celebration of marriages in countries party to the Convention. The Hague Convention requires a member country to allow the celebration of a marriage on its territory where the couple meet the requirements of the law of that country, provided that one of the parties is a citizen of that member country or habitually resides there. At the moment Australian law forbids the marriage of parties in Australia where the law of the domicile of both of the parties forbids it. In practice, it is difficult for celebrants in Australia to form an opinion about the domicile of the parties or the law of a foreign country. The Bill proposes to deal with this problem by recognising the position which, as a matter of practice, has existed in Australia for many years; namely, that marriage celebrants in Australia marry persons in Australia-whether or not they are foreigners-by reference only to Australian law. To enable Australia to comply with Chapter I of the Hague Convention, the application of Part III of the Marriage Act-dealing with void marriages-is varied by clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill so that the rules of that Part will apply to all marriages solemnised after the amending provisions come into force in Australia or outside Australia under Australian law. This amounts to a variation of Australia's 'choice of law rules' and means that each of the parties to a marriage will only be required to meet the requirements of Australian law before they may marry under that law. Recognition of the Validity of Marriages Chapter II of the Hague Convention imposes upon countries that are parties to the Convention an obligation to recognise marriages that are validly celebrated under the law of the place of celebration, subject to certain basic exceptions. This obligation will involve recognition being given to some marriages which would not be considered valid under the common law rules of private international law. In implementing the Convention the Bill also provides, in new section 88E, that these common law rules will remain in operation to a limited extent, so that even if a marriage would not be recognised as valid under the Convention, it will nevertheless be recognised as valid if the common law rules so provide. Essentially, the Convention operates as a gloss upon the common law, as it will provide an additional basis upon which the recognition of validity of foreign marriages may be afforded. The Convention rules are contained in a new Part-Part VA-to be inserted in the Act by clause 23. To give the maximum benefit, Part VA is to apply to all marriages whether solemnised before or after the Convention comes into force for Australia. The only difficulty that this may cause will arise where a party to a marriage, which was previously regarded as invalid, has remarried prior to the commencement of the new rules, relying on the invalidity of the prior marriage. Accordingly, there is a saving provision in new sub-section 88D (5) so that the first marriage in that situation will continue to be regarded as void, whether or not it would be valid under the Convention rules. Priority is thus given to the subsequent marriage, which was entered into in good faith. Part VA will extend recognition to a marriage solemnised in a country outside Australia as valid throughout Australia if the marriage was, at the time it was solemnised, recognised as valid by the law of the country where is was solemnised or, alternatively, if the marriage is recognised as valid under that law at the time its validity falls to be determined-paragraphs 88C (1) (a) and (2) (a). Analogous provisions will apply to marriages solemnised overseas by foreign diplomatic or consular officers. These rules of recognition will, however, be subject to a number of exceptions permitted by Article 11 of the Convention and set out in sub-sections 88D (2) and (3). A marriage solemnised in a country outside Australia will not be required to be recognised as valid under the Convention rules where: Firstly, either party was, at the time of the marriage, already married to some other person; secondly, either party was not of the minimum Australian marriageable age, which is 16 years for males and 14 years for females; thirdly, the parties were within a prohibited relationship; or, fourthly, the consent of either was not a real consent. Another provision of Part VA, section 88F, provides, in accordance with the policy expressed in Article 12 of the Hague Convention, that where the question of the validity of a marriage is incidental to the determination of another question-for example, relating to inheritance-the validity question shall be resolved in accordance with the Convention rules. A prima facie method of proof of a marriage alleged to have been solemnised in a foreign country is also provided in section 88G. The Bill also makes a number of other amendments. Legitimacy of children Some of these relate to Part VI of the Act, which deals with the legitimacy of children in certain circumstances. One amendment, in clause 26, inserts new sub-section 93 (3) into the Act. The background to this amendment can be found in the recent developments in technology to assist reproduction, most notably the technique of in vitro fertilisation. This technique, together with the related one of artificial insemination by donor, has given rise to discussions in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with a view to the enactment of uniform State and Territory legislation dealing with the parentage of these children. These discussions have not been concerned with the broader ethical and social issues raised by these techniques; they have simply been directed to the clarification of the status of the increasing number of children born in these ways. In general, the decision has been taken that a donor of genetic material should have no relationship with the child, and the legal parental relationship should be given to the 'social' parents. In the context of Standing Committee discussions, some doubts were raised as to whether Part VI of the Marriage Act might not unintentionally frustrate part of this uniform law exercise. This would be so if the provisions of Part VI were to be interpreted by the courts as 'covering the field' with respect to the legitimation of children, leaving no room for the State laws concerned to have a valid operation. The problem is a constitutional one to do with the overriding effect of Commonwealth law. This amendment will make clear the intention of the Parliament not to affect the validity or effect of State and Territory laws dealing with the parentage of these children. The other amendment to Part VI, in clause 25, involves the extension of the operation of section 90 of the Act. That section deals with legitimation by virtue of a foreign marriage, and presently has no operation where the relevant foreign law does not recognise the status of illegitimacy. The amendment will deal with such a case by treating a child as legitimate if its parents subsequently marry. The opportunity has also been taken to amend the application provisions of sections 89 and 90 so that they operate on the domicile of either parent, rather than only that of the child's father. This change reflects the situation in which a married woman now has a separate domicile, since the enactment of the Domicile Act 1982. Notice of Intended Marriage Minor amendments are made by clause 16 to section 42 of the Act to improve the operation of the provisions dealing with notices of intended marriage. The most important is the extension, from three months to six months, of the maximum period prior to the date of the marriage within which the notice can be filed. Extension of this time will allow celebrants and parties greater flexibility in making arrangements. The Family Law Council has considered this proposal, which has been put by civil celebrant groups, and sees no objection to it. Australian diplomatic officials are added to the list of those who may witness a notice of intended marriage. This will make the necessary paperwork easier for those who have to come from outside Australia to marry in Australia. Fees for Civil Celebrants The Bill inserts provisions to provide that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge a fee for the solemnisation of a marriage higher than that prescribed by the regulations. This will make it clear that the prescribed fees are the legal maximum that can be demanded for solemnisation. It seems desirable, in light of the particularly vulnerable position of parties about to be married, that there be a clear legislative statement to this effect, for the protection of both parties and celebrants. It is not intended by this provision to affect the ability of celebrants to make reasonable charges for other matters ancillary to the actual solemnisation, such as flowers or music. I should also point out that the Government is keeping under review the level of fees to ensure, consistent with overall economic restraint, that the fees represent an adequate remuneration for this important service. Early last year the fees payable were significantly increased in light of these principles. Provision of 'Marriage Education' As a continuing part of the Government's response to recommendation 61 of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act-that 'education for marriage and family life be further supported'-the concept of 'pre-marital education' in part 1A of the Act is broadened to that of 'Marriage Education', by clauses 5 to 9. Organisations working in the area of pre-marital education have often indicated that one of the most useful times to engage in education for marriage is in that period shortly after the marriage has been entered into. Recently this Parliament enacted long needed changes to the laws governing the termination of marriage. This Bill represents another facet of the Government's commitment to resolving the problems faced by ordinary men and women in Australia in that most personal area of their lives. Particularly in extending the grounds for recognition of marriages entered into overseas, in ensuring the legitimacy of children recognised as such by State laws, and in broadening the scope of education for married life, this Bill is an affirmative statement of the importance of marriage as a fundamental and enduring institution. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(6.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have heard the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), at the end of his second reading speech, say that marriage was a fundamental and enduring institution, and the Opposition likewise takes that view. Indeed, the Opposition takes the view, as do most people in the community, that marriage is one of the foundations of our society. Accordingly we believe the Marriage Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Marriage Act, is of considerable importance. The Opposition likewise takes the view that the family is the basic unit of our society and that government policy, insofar as this is a role for government policy, should be directed towards supporting the family an buttressing the institution of marriage upon which the family is based. So many of our traditional values are now being brought under challenge and the institution of marriage in particular is being besieged in this way. Accordingly, we believe the Bill should help protect the institution of marriage against those attacks. For that reason, we will in general support it. We will, however, be moving one amendment relating to the fees that may be charged by civil marriage celebrants. I will come to that amendment later. The primary purpose of the Bill is to implement the Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, which was signed by the former Government in 1980. The Convention is aimed at alleviating a growing international problem with particular significance to Australia, and that is the recognition by one country of marriages celebrated in another, or between parties domiciled in another country. This is particularly pertinent to Australia-I think the Attorney-General mentioned this statistic-because, as a result of post-war immigration, 35 per cent of all marriages in 1983 involved at least one party who was born outside this country. There is always the danger, usually a remote one, that where a couple who married overseas come to live in Australia or a person who is born overseas marries in Australia, there may be some legal complication concerning the validity in Australia of the marriage, and some question of whether the overseas marriage will be recognised under Australian law. The common law solution to this problem is complicated and uncertain because it allows the courts to make what is known as a choice of laws. They could, in the right circumstances, adopt either the law of Australia or the law of the foreign country in which the parties celebrated their marriage or were domiciled to determine the validity of the marriage. The shortcomings in this rule are apparent, particularly where polygamous marriages or marriages between persons in a prohibited relationship are involved. For instance, in one country a marriage between close relatives might be recognised but under Australian law such a union would be invalid. The rules by which Australian courts determine which law is to apply are complex and not easily understood by lawyers, let alone laymen. Generations of law students and lawyers have been kept awake at night grappling with these difficult principles and rules of international law. The Hague Convention has adopted a sensible and practical solution to this problem. The outcome of the Convention was, in substance, an acceptance that so far as possible there should be uniform rules throughout the world. Those rules will be, in effect, codified into Australian law by this Bill. The more countries that adhere to and give effect to the Convention, as Australia has, the greater the convenience and the greater the certainty for married persons in Australia and the rest of the world. If this Bill becomes law the existing choice of law rules will be amended or modified so that, in addition to the common law rules, it will be our law that, with some exceptions to protect against unions that are repugnant to our society, the law of the place where the marriage was entered into will govern the validity of the marriage. If a marriage was validly celebrated under the law of the place of celebration, it will be recognised as valid in Australia. This will mean that in future all questions relating to the validity of marriages entered into in Australia, whether by Australian residents or aliens, will be determined by Australian law. At the same time this Bill will give effect to the Convention by requiring Australian courts to accept as valid any marriage performed in another country which conforms with the laws of that country. There are some exceptions which I believe make good sense and which are recognised in the Convention. For instance, bigamous marriages will not be recognised. These proposals are sound and the Opposition gives them its support. I turn now to the provisions of the Bill which deal with a unique situation concerning the legitimacy of children. Clause 26 of the Bill deals with State laws affecting children born as a result of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation. Those State laws provide different legal consequences for such children, as we learn from an examination of clause 23, depending on what State one looks at. I will have more to say later about those varying legal consequences because it is very curious to look at the differences between the law in one State and the laws in other States. Clause 23 of the Bill provides that nothing in the relevant part of the Commonwealth Marriage Act affects the validity or effect of any of the State laws. Its purpose is to give some effect to the State laws that are already on the State statute books. This is acceptable as a holding operation. Anything that clarifies the status of children born as a result of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation must be desirable. It is for that reason that the Opposition supports this proposed amendment to the law as a holding operation. The reason for the need to clarify their status, as we have been told by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, is that some doubts have arisen as to whether Part VI of the Marriage Act might leave no room for the State laws to have a valid operation. The result might be that there would be no law governing the legitimacy of those children or, at least, a very confused situation. Clearly, no one wants that situation to exist. We are told, therefore, that the purpose of this amendment is to make clear the intention of this Parliament to be not to affect the validity or effect of the State laws dealing with the parentage of children born as a result of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation. We are therefore in this Parliament legislating to the effect that the State laws remain valid. There is no doubt that the law should be clear and there is no doubt that to make the law clear we have to declare that the validity of the State laws is not to be compromised or brought into doubt. As I say, the Opposition will support this provision for that reason, and support it as a holding measure. But what a scandalous situation it is that the law on such a subject can differ from State to State. It is obvious from the Bill that in some States a child born as the result of these procedures is treated as the child of the woman concerned, as she is described in the Bill. Under other State law, the child is treated not as the child of the woman concerned, but as the child of the woman and a particular man. Under other State laws the child is treated as the child of a particular man. These discrepancies in the various State laws are, I suggest, quite ludicrous. There is an obvious need for uniform law on this subject so that the status of the children concerned is clear and so that their status does not change from State to State. We know that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has been discussing the enactment of uniform State laws dealing with the parentage of such children. I put it that it is a disgrace that it has not been able to come to some conclusion about it and have that conclusion implemented. I know that discussions have proceeded. I understand that some of the State laws have been enacted pursuant to that attempt to achieve uniformity. But the fact remains that there is not uniformity and there should be. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should act, we believe, far more promptly than it has done so far, if that is not asking too much, and it should take steps to have uniform legislation implemented as soon as possible. It is quite unconscionable to have the law relating to innocent children left in a state of such uncertainty any longer. The Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General will be failing in their duty if they do not bring this ridiculous state of affairs to an end, and do so promptly. So we will support this measure as a holding operation, but will have plenty to say if the situation is not soon rectified on a permanent basis. I should say before leaving the subject that I have another concern about this particular part of the Bill. We are not, of course, as is apparent, legislating on the propriety of the medical procedures which give rise to this problem; nor are we passing judgment on those procedures. But the danger is that we are writing in some form of recognition of the procedures which will no doubt be pointed to by some in the future as some sort of implied approval of them. We are doing that without any real debate on the issue, without having any opportunity to have a real debate on the substance of the issue and without any discussion or declaration in the legislation about the limits, if any, which should be imposed on those procedures and the consequence of those procedures. That, I believe, is unwise. It is unwise because the legislation that we are discussing today will no doubt be pointed to in the future as some sort of precedent. It reinforces-if anything else were needed to reinforce it-just how much of a holding operation this amendment to the law is. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give just one example, without taking too much time about it. One of the provisions in the State law is to the effect that a State law may-and I paraphrase the Bill-require a child born to a woman, as a result of the carrying-out of one of these medical procedures in relation to the woman, to be treated as the child of a particular man. One would have thought, looking at it on the surface, that that is not a situation which we could allow to be regarded as a uniform recognition in the law throughout Australia. If there is one State which has, as it apparently does, a provision in its law to that effect, two things follow: Firstly, we should certainly have a national debate as to whether that is what this country wants; and, secondly, it simply reinforces the need to have a uniform situation throughout Australia. I hope that nobody in the future will point to this debate as having given any imprimatur to any of the particular procedures or as to the legal consequences of any of those procedures having taken place. But I regret to say that I have very little doubt that it will be pointed to. I think it is unfortunate that any sort of implied approval of the procedures, or the legal limits following from the procedures, should be given as a result of passing this legislation. I turn now-again, comparatively briefly-to the question of marriage celebrants' fees which is the subject of the Opposition's amendments which I think has now been circulated. The Bill inserts into the Marriage Act a provision to the effect that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge a fee for solemnising a marriage which is higher than the fee prescribed by regulation. The fees, of course have been increased from time to time. But questions have arisen as to whether civil marriage celebrants can charge a higher fee than the one that the Government thinks is good for a civil marriage celebrant to charge. The proposal in the Bill makes it clear that they will not be able to charge a fee higher than the one which is set out on the table from the Government. The Opposition takes the view that that is not a proper provision to have in the Act. Indeed, it is a provision that should not be contained in any statutes unless there is an overwhelming case made out for it to be there. I think that many members would agree that to include government price fixing in any arrangement between free citizens should not be undertaken or should not be embarked upon unless there are overwhelming circumstances and an overwhelmingly strong case is made out for that situation to be implemented into law. The Opposition believes that the ordinary principles of contract-or, if one likes to put it this way, the ordinary principles applying when ordinary free human beings come together and deal the one with the other-should be allowed to apply in this case in relation to these matters. People should be free to make whatever arrangements they wish in regard to this matter. The Government proposal amounts fairly and squarely not only to price fixing by the Government but price fixing in an area that should be a matter for the personal relationship of the individuals concerned and for the individuals to make up their own minds about. That is the reason why the Opposition opposes this provision in the Bill. Clearly, fees should be prescribed because the parties may wish to enter into a contractual relationship on the basis of those fees and therefore they should have some guide as to what the fees will be. However, they may not address themselves to that issue; so in the absence of a specific agreement for the fee to be charged it can be said that the celebrant has a right to charge the prescribed fee. One could say that probably there should be no argument against that. In principle there is no reason why, when the parties specifically set their mind to the question and bargain that the celebrant can charge a higher fee, he or she should be prevented from obtaining that fee. In fact there is a stronger case for the simple reason that no case was made by the Attorney-General in the second reading speech as to why there should be government price fixing and compulsory adherence to government fees in this area essentially concerning personal relationships. There is no case and, indeed, no attempt being made by the Government to explain why this should be so. Therefore, the Opposition amendment will delete the Government provision and will insert a new provision to ensure that nothing in the Act may be interpreted as preventing a civil marriage celebrant from charging a higher fee and preventing parties to a marriage from paying that fee if they wish to. It will not be compulsory, but people may wish to pay. No reason has been given in this Parliament as to why the parties should not be free to do that if they wish. There are quite enough government controls on what free citizens do in this country without having any more. If there are to be more restrictions an overwhelming case must be made out as to why citizens' liberties should be restricted in this way. I will turn finally to the part of the Bill relating to marriage education. The second reading speech is almost silent on explaining changes proposed to be made to the Act in this regard also. However, despite that almost complete state of silence on this issue it appears that in future grants of money will be made to approved organisations engaged in marriage counselling rather than to pre-marriage counselling and that voluntary organisations will be approved if they engage in marriage counselling, not only pre-marriage counselling. Therefore, the Bill seeks to implement a widening of the concept of marriage education. Marriage counselling bodies in Australia perform a very valuable service and it is desirable that they should be recognised by this amendment to the Act. Although the Government apparently is not prepared to use that as a reason for the amendment, the Opposition is prepared to rely on the valuable service provided by these organisations as a justification and as a good reason for widening the provisions in the Act relating to counselling. We certainly do that with a great deal of enthusiasm. In addition I endorse the call made in the Senate by Senator Durack for more resources to be made available for marriage counselling and marriage education. Senator Durack pointed out in this context that marriage counselling organisations have had a very good success rate. There is considerable evidence to show that they are very successful and therefore should be given every encouragement to continue with their work. Another matter that arises in this area concerns the establishment by the Government last year of so-called pilot family law centres. It has never really been made clear by the Government exactly what its intention is in respect of these centres. If the proposal for pilot family law centres is to undermine or contradict the work of the voluntary organisations engaging in family law counselling and marriage counselling we will oppose that attempt-if that is what it is-to undermine their activities. Our problem is that at the moment we just do not know what their true role is. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find it very edifying to read the record of the Senate Estimates Committee debate last year when Senator Gareth Evans was trying not to explain the Government's intention in respect of these family law centres. Anyone who has read Senator Durack's penetrating cross-examination of Senator Gareth Evans on that occasion in the Senate Estimates Committee hearings would conclude that it was like drawing teeth to get anything out of Senator Evans concerning the Government's exact intentions. Although his officials who were present on that occasion were quite prepared to assist in enlightening senators as to the objective of the family law pilot centres Senator Evans was clearly very reluctant to tell the people's representatives just what the Government's intention was. Therefore, at this stage our complaint is not so much that these centres are undesirable but simply that their role has never been made clear. I say to the present Attorney-General that he is more clear in his language than was his predecessor. I hope he will take this opportunity to tell us exactly the Government's intention in respect of these proposed centres. It is our view that the Government should tell us about another important matter, counselling services in the Family Court. Those counsellors actually working in the Family Court structure perform a tremendously valuable service and work under enormous hardships. They do not have the resources they need and there are not the numbers of counsellors necessary. As a result there is an increasing waiting list for counselling services to be provided to people who are often in very distressing circumstances. That continuing, mounting and lengthening waiting list simply cannot be allowed to have even more cases added to it without more family law counsellors being made available to resolve those very pressing problems. Most people who work in this field know that the appointment of more Family Court judges is not the complete solution to the problems of the Family Court, rather that many of the problems will be more expeditiously resolved by the appointment of more counsellors because counsellors do such valuable work in unlocking so many of the disputes in which the parties really are at loggerheads. I urge the Attorney-General on this occasion to give every support to the Family Court counselling services. I give him every opportunity and every encouragement to tell us how the reviews of that service now under way are coming along. Are the reviews on target? Has the review of the Family Court counsellors enough resources? Are there any problems they are having difficulty in resolving? When can we expect some answers from that review? The reviews are looking at some of the industrial relations problems, if I can use that expression in its broad sense, and are looking at the management structure in relation to whether the Family Court counselling service is structured in the right way to provide the right sorts of services necessary. The Parliament is entitled to know about the progress of these reviews. It is entitled to know when we will get some answers from the reviews and, above all, what the Government is doing by way of appointing extra Family Court counsellors to alleviate the pressing log-jam of cases presently requiring urgent attention, even as a holding measure before the reports from the review bodies are brought down. Finally, I say that Senator Durack made a plea in the Senate for an inquiry by a Senate committee to look into some of the aspects of the counselling services. I endorse that suggestion. It need not necessarily involve a Senate committee; it could be a House of Representatives or joint committee. In the Parliament we should be looking at questions relating to things such as the pilot family law centres that I mentioned earlier in my remarks. We should be looking at the proper role of Family Court counsellors and the extent to which they should counsel for reconciliation. We should look at whether the Family Court counsellors should be part of the Family Court structure or in some separate and parallel organisation. We should be looking at the relationship of Family Court counselling to marriage counselling services and the cost benefits of counselling. Those matters should be examined by members of this Parliament. I shall take up no more time on that matter, but simply say that I endorse the call made by Senator Durack for those matters to be looked at by a Senate Committee, or perhaps by a joint committee or a committee of the House of Representatives. Such problems go to the root of many of the difficulties faced by individual citizens. We shall do those people a great service if we can help to solve some of their personal problems by providing the proper structure within which they can be solved. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.32) —I am happy to support the Marriage Amendment Bill 1985. I shall confine my comments to several aspects of the Bill that I regard as important and leave my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) to deal with other aspects of it. I take up a couple of points made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). I support his call for uniform legislation between States as to the definition of 'child'. It is ludicrous that such problems should arise, and if we can get over the States' rights argument and bring common sense to bear on the matter, I think that we can get around those problems. I do not support the amendment relating to marriage celebrants which seeks deregulation by not requiring the Government to set a maximum fee to protect both the marriage celebrant and the people being married. The honourable member for Menzies may have forgotten that legal aid lawyers are paid a fee set by the Government, and that the lawyers appear to be happy with that arrangement. The position becomes complex when one considers fees for lawyers and doctors. However, it is my impression that the Government will not accept that amendment. The primary purpose of the Bill, as has been stated, is to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to facilitate the recognition in Australia of overseas marriages. It is fitting that of all countries Australia should put forward this Bill, as Australia has been settled by a large number of people from all over the world. One sees from the latest available statistics that at 30 June 1981 persons born outside Australia made up 21 per cent of the population and, as the honourable member for Menzies pointed out, in 1983 35 per cent of marriages in Australia were entered into by people from overseas. Therefore, the Bill is sound to the extent that it brings some rationality to the laws of marriage where there may be conflicts within the courts. The second aspect of the Bill with which I deal relates to clauses 5 to 9 which extend to provisions for financial assistance for pre-marital education to marriage education. This arises out of the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that 'education for marriage and family life be further supported'. The concept of pre-marital education in Part 1A of the Act is broadened to that of 'marriage education' by clauses 5 to 9. Organisations working in the area of pre-marital education have often indicated that one of the most useful times to engage in education for marriage is in the period shortly after the marriage has been entered into. As the honourable member for Menzies said, last year the Government conducted an advertising campaign to halt marriage breakdowns. There are many reasons for such a campaign, and I shall touch on a number of them. The first argument relates to the numbers of people involved. Statistics from the Department of Social Security on the recipients of the supporting parents benefits show that there are 79,000 separated wives, 18,000 separated de facto wives and 4,100 separated husbands. Those figures relate to people who are currently receiving the supporting parents benefits. If one also includes recipients of the widow's pension, it can be seen that the number of divorcees in this category is 52,000 and the number of deserted wives 41,000. The estimated costs in monetary terms for that year are between $1,000m and $1,200m-a substantial amount of revenue from the public purse. That is not the whole story. We should be more concerned with the social costs-matters such as loss of productivity and high rate of staff turnover. One has only to look at the effect on the work patterns of marriage breakups. I refer to expensive child welfare, increasing pressure from single parents for low cost housing, and many other manifestations of marriage breakups, which are very important. The saddest effect of marriage breakdowns is felt by the children of the marriage. From the time a breakup occurs or a wife is deserted, the children involved are behind for the rest of their lives. They are not brought up in a normal family environment and the social costs cannot be measured. I refer to a report in the West Australian on 13 October 1984 entitled 'Saving Marriages on a Government Shoestring'. The Marriage Guidance Council, the Anglican Health and Welfare Service and the Catholic Centrecare Agency see thousands of people each year. According to Mr Crawley, the Director of the West Australian Marriage Guidance Council, at least 60 per cent of the 1,700 couples seen by the Council last year claim that they were better able to cope with problems and felt happier in relationships after counselling. Mr Crawley said: If 57-or 3.4 per cent-of those couples could resolve their differences and did not require supporting parents' benefits, the service would recoup all its Commonwealth grant money each year. That was the practical experience of Mr Crawley, who is engaged in marriage counselling. He seems to think that such counselling is well worth while and I support the call by the honourable member for Menzies that more funds be made available. I hope that in the years to come that an increase in funds will be made. I refer to clause 15 of the Bill which relates to the addition of a provision to ensure that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge more than the fees prescribed. I have already touched on that matter and indicated that I do not think the Government will support the amendment by the honourable member for Menzies. It is my experience as a member of parliament that marriage celebrants fill a very worthwhile gap in the marriage spectrum. I wish to mention three celebrants in my electorate, the Mayor of the City of Canning, Mr Ellco Tucoma, the Deputy Mayor of the City, Mr Joe Delle Donne-I am pleased to say that I was able to help those gentlemen to become marriage celebrants-and also Councillor Elorie Griffin. Councillor Griffin is a marriage celebrant of long standing and has conducted many weddings in the electorate of Canning. Civil celebrants fill a gap in the system, and I believe that many people are very much happier to go along to a celebrant rather than to have a wedding service conducted in the church. The last point I mention, which has already been referred to is clause 26. The clause inserts a provision to make it clear that the provisions of the Act as to legitimation by subsequent marriage do not affect the operation of State and Territory law relating to the legitimacy of children born as a consequence of in vitro fertilisation or artificial insemination procedures. Clause 26 gives the Bill a contemporary flavour. Many of the matters with which the Bill deals have been perfected only in the last couple of years. Indeed, today's Press contains a story relating to a company called IVF Australia, which has been established to market IVF technology and to send Melbourne-trained experts to clinics throughout the world. Australia leads the world in this technology and it will now be marketed overseas. It is clear to anybody who studies this subject that the IVF program will produce many more children in the future for those who cannot have children by normal means. I am pleased to see the Bill taking account of that aspect. I commend the Bill to the House and hope for its speedy passage. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.40) —The purposes of the Marriage Amendment Bill have been outlined both by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). I do not wish to traverse what they have said. I think all of us are in favour of uniform rules relating to the recognition of marriages, and I hope that more than the five countries which I understand have presently acceded to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages will soon become party to that Convention. A convention of five countries is very much less useful than a convention of 25 or 30 countries. The Bill also deals with the question of legitimacy of children born as a result of certain medical procedures. The honourable member for Menzies has touched on the import of that matter, and I wish to come back to it later. There are, in fact, three areas that I wish to address: First of all, the fixing of fees for celebrants, secondly, the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, not a matter which has been addressed in the Bill; and, thirdly, the profound moral and ethical questions raised by scientific developments in biomedical techniques of artificial conception. Let me first of all deal with the question of fees. The Attorney-General has said to us: It seems desirable, in light of the particularly vulnerable position of parties about to be married, that there be a clear legislative statement to this effect, for the protection of both parties and celebrants. It is not intended by this provision to affect the ability of celebrants to make reasonable charges for other matters ancillary to the actual solemnisation, such as flowers or music. Flowers are all right, music is okay-one can charge what one thinks the market fairly would bear. But when it comes to fees, that is a different matter. The pavlovian reaction of those whose minds are encased in nineteenth century ideology causes them immediately to say: 'If it's a fee and if we can fix it, we're going to fix it. Mark you, if it's a fee which has anything to do with a union we're not going to fix it. We're going to index it, we're going to give it superannuation benefits and we're going to give it productivity gains'. But a marriage celebrant falls into a quite different class. It does not matter whether a celebrant is drunk or sober. It does not matter whether he is shaven or unshaven, or whether a woman celebrant presents well or presents badly. It does not matter whether she or he is sympathetic, understanding, kind and genuinely interested in what is going on or whether he or she-my God, how we get into this he or she terminology!-is not sympathetic, understanding or anything else but is simply out to make a quick buck. None of these things are to be taken into consideration. A celebrant is to be paid $20 regardless-no more and no less, certainly no more. Of course, that is the purest of nonsense. The reasons why this rather absurd provision has been introduced are given away in the next paragraph of the Attorney-General's second reading speech, where he says: I should also point out that the Government is keeping under review the level of fees to ensure, consistent with overall economic restraint, that the fees represent an adequate remuneration for this important service. In fact, what the Attorney-General is talking about is the Government's precious wage accord. Those vulnerable people who, having made the major decision to get married, are apparently quite competent to decide what they should pay for music and for flowers but are quite incompetent to decide what they should pay a celebrant for uttering those words which have for many a beneficial and kindly import and which will have for others a somewhat more lethal import or, indeed, more lethal consequences somewhere further down the track. When one considers that many of the people who are getting married are not only quite competent to make decisions about their lives because, after all, they have already made a very important one but also in the exuberance of a triumph of optimism over experience, are entering into an engagement for a second or third time, one can only wonder why it is necessary to protect them in that one area. Unquestionably there is no basis for such protection. The only basis put forward to support this proposal is perfectly specious. Let me move on to a quite different matter. The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was concluded in The Hague in October 1980. It came into force on 1 December 1983 and was signed by Canada, France and Portugal. Switzerland has since become a party to it. The purpose of the Convention may be found in Article I, which states: The objects of the present Convention are- a to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and b to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States. In short, this provision seeks to overcome the jungle in which one parent finds himself when a child is abducted by the other parent. The immense and continuing anguish, the sense of isolation and helplessness of parents who find themselves in that kind of situation, are acute. I have seen the problem professionally and I have seen it as a member of parliament. I will look at some of the problems that parents face. First of all, how does a parent track a child down? Secondly, once a child has been tracked down what does a parent do? Does the parent go to the courts of the country in which the child and the husband or wife who has taken that child away are found, while engaged in litigation and worry about whether the child will be abducted again and face the endless delays that courts can pose and the enormous expenses of travel and living and that the lawyers will exact of that parent? Should that parent seek to take the opportunity to snatch the child back? These are very real problems which some parents have to face. We face here a provision which was concluded in October 1980, for which provision was made in the Family Law Amendment Act 1983-that is, provision for Australia to become a party-and which is still under examination. The delay is inordinate and inexcusable. It passes understanding how time can be wasted and this Convention can be not being given effect to. I ask the Attorney-General to see whether he can speed up the consideration being given to this Convention so that parents who face this kind of appalling situation can be given some aid and comfort by way of a more uniform and workable system in place of the present system which they have to face when seeking to recover an abducted child. I now pass to a different subject. Developments in biomedical techniques of conception have passed the frontiers of traditional ethical responses and have confronted us with new dimensions in ethical and moral values and questions. Artificial conception, as honourable members will be aware, is dealt with in clause 26 of the Bill, which recognises State laws but which poses some of the problems that were outlined by the honourable member for Menzies. Artificial conception can be achieved through two main methods. First of all, there is artificial insemination of sperm, for example, from a husband to his wife. The second method is in vitro fertilisation, in which case the egg is fertilised in a laboratory and is then implanted, the second part of the process being called an embryo transplant. This is a quite historic and unique development in that the egg is fertilised outside the human body. This first took place in England in 1978. The problems posed can be seen in terms of surrogacy. Surrogacy can be achieved, first of all, through artificial insemination and, secondly, through a surrogate mother being implanted with an in vitro fertilised egg. Thirdly, there is a technique called NID. The word 'nid' means a nest in French, and that does not seem inappropriate because the acronym NID stands for natural insemination donor. In that case the male, with or without payment, naturally inseminates another women with his wife's consent, under an arrangement which is to ensure that the offspring will be the child of the impregnating male and his wife. This has already happened in New South Wales. The new medical realities that we face illustrate the dimension of the moral questions that we must confront. I would like to pose some of those questions in terms of an examination of three different cases or sets of facts. Let us take first of all surrogate motherhood. Should commercial surrogacy be allowed? What of non-commercial surrogacy? The concern for this important issue is felt everywhere. Every State of Australia is having or has had inquiries into artificial forms of conception. National guidelines were laid down on in vitro fertilisation in 1982 by the Medical Research Ethics Committee, a committee operating under the Department of Health. Incidentally, these guidelines were a world first. In New South Wales at present all aspects of artificial conception, including surrogacy, are under examination by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission under the direction of Mr Russell Scott, the Deputy Chairman. The Warnock Committee in England, which reported in July 1984, recommended that commercial surrogacy should be a criminal offence and that all surrogacy arrangements, commercial or otherwise, should be illegal and unenforceable. The Weller Committee, which was set up in Victoria and which reported in August 1984, followed the Warnock line. The Victorian Parliament's response to that committee's report was the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, which has not, however, been proclaimed. It is the first Act in the world to deal in detail with in vitro fertilisation procedures. Commercial surrogacy is made criminal by it and all arrangements, contractual or otherwise, are made void and unenforceable. What should be our attitude to commercial surrogacy? Ought we to permit commercial surrogacy arrangements? I must confess that my instinctive reaction is that fees for conception, carriage and birth seem not just distasteful but morally offensive. On the other hand, in the United States of America traffic in commercial surrogacy is allowed. What of the non-commercial surrogacy arrangements? My instinctive reaction here is that in certain circumstances surely those arrangements should be permitted. I give the House the example of a non-commercial surrogate arrangement motivated by love and affection. There is a known case in this country, in circumstances in which conception might have been fatal to the wife, of the wife's sister volunteering for in vitro fertilisation procedures. Should that not be allowed? If one is looking for ancient precedent it is perhaps to be found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 30, verses one to six. It is quoted by Mr Russell Scott in his excellent book The Body as Property. It reads: And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and she said unto Jacob, give me children or else I die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruits of the womb? And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees that I may also have children by her. And she gave Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her. And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son. And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son . . . That is perhaps the first example of a surrogate arrangement. I turn to the second of the three cases to which I wanted to refer. It starkly illustrates the new moral frontiers that we have reached. It is now scientifically possible to take an in vitro fertilised egg a few days after its creation, surgically divide it into two sections and freeze one part and implant the other in a woman's womb, for the conception of a female child then to take place and for that child to grow to adulthood. It is scientifically possible for her then to be implanted with the other section so that she becomes the mother of her own twin. This would never be permitted but the scientific possibility exists. Let me take the third case. In vitro fertilised eggs can be deep frozen and stored, and Australians perfected this technique back in 1981. Stored eggs can become surplus. What does one do with the surplus eggs? The Warnock and Weller committees thought that research was justifiable provided that the eggs were no more than 14 days old. In the United Kingdom Parliament very recently Mr Enoch Powell introduced a private member's Bill which would outlaw all forms of research into in vitro fertilised eggs, and that has received a very wide measure of across the board support in that Parliament. Yet I understand that the benefits of research could be vast-for example, a cure for Down's Syndrome. I have not the least idea what the answer should be, but the dimensions of the moral questions with which these new techniques confront us are universal and must be dealt with on a national basis. Two things are necessary: Firstly, a Federal inquiry at the highest level, bringing in those who are wise, not simply in scientific matters and techniques, but also in ethical and moral questions; and secondly, a code that should apply throughout this country. Newness, the complexity and the dimensions of the questions we have to face would caution us to hasten slowly. Whilst we must hasten slowly, we must begin urgently because it is essential that this question be addressed and be addressed deeply and that we come up with solutions which are wise, which are understood and which are beneficial. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.57) —The Marriage Amendment Bill is of great importance in the electorate I represent because, although 35 per cent of the marriages in Australia are between a party who was born overseas and an Australian, in my opinion at least half the people married in my electorate were born overseas. Great problems arise out of common law because a marriage celebrant-be it a minister of religion or an authorised celebrant-has no way of knowing whether the person being married is an alien, is domiciled in Australia, or is a permanent resident here. This legislation is essentially to simplify the procedures for authorised celebrants. The legislation recognises overseas marriages and facilitates the marriage of Australians, residents of Australia, and persons who are in Australia. In introducing this legislation the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) mentioned the Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, which is really an informal arrangement whereby a number of countries come together in the Hague every four years. Australia joined this group in 1976, and I noted in the Canadian Bar Review a list of the countries forming the conference. These include the Arab republic of Egypt, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia and so on. Other Western countries include the United Kingdom and the United States. These conventions with which we are dealing came out of the Thirteenth Conference on Private International Law in 1976. I congratulate the Government for bringing them forward because they are extremely important in this day and age when many Australians marry overseas and many know that they may have trouble getting their marriage recognised in this country. I believe that the provisions of the Bill will be of great assistance, not only to the marriage celebrants but also to the officers of the Attorney-General's Department. The legislation goes on to deal with the fees paid to authorised marriage celebrants. The Opposition has circulated an amendment which I know the Government will oppose because the Government has consulted with the marriage celebrants and is prescribing certain fees. I know that the House will support the Government's provisions there. The part of the legislation which has attracted some interest is the question of legitimacy of children. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has mentioned in vitro fertilisation at great length. Only State governments can legislate on legitimacy and the Commonwealth can agree only when a State government acts in this area. The legislation is really irrelevant to the question of legitimacy. I do not wish to delay the House because I know that the Minister is keen to have the legislation passed tonight. I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate the Minister for bringing the legislation forward. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(7.02) —I stand in this House representing the National Party of Australia. Whilst I applaud many of the principles contained in the Marriage Amendment Bill, which is to bring into effect the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, it is important to scrutinise very carefully anything brought before this House by the Hawke socialist composite Government. I use the word 'composite' because of the rag-tag combination of warring factions which constitute that unhappy entity. The Hawke coalition of various groups is a government on the way out, a government which is presiding over the erosion of family values in our community and of the place of the family as the basic unit in our society. This Bill is yet another example of the Commonwealth entering into treaty obligations, thereby enabling it to abuse the external affairs power by warping and perverting the traditional division of powers between the States and the Commonwealth as enshrined in the Constitution. However laudable the substance of the Bill may be, Australians must appreciate that the Australian Labor Party is once again ripping up, indeed working to wreck utterly, the spirit of the Constitution by bringing in this Bill in this manner. It is essential that when we return to government after the next election any future proposed treaty be subjected to proper scrutiny as to its constitutional implications by a joint committee of this House and the Senate. In addition, there must be extensive consultations with each of the States before any such proposed treaty is executed. As honourable members may be aware, the United States Government by law cannot enter into treaties without the consent of the United States Senate. With the ANZUS treaty virtually in tatters as a result of Mr Lange and his New Zealand Labor Party, as well as factionalism in the ALP, the Government should take note that any replacement treaty would have to be vetted by the United States upper House. We on this side of the chamber consider the Crown, federalism and the Constitution-- Mr Maher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member but he is diverting from the Bill. He is talking about ANZUS, the Crown and the United States Senate. I ask you to bring him back to the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I ask the honourable member for Fisher to make his remarks relevant. Mr SLIPPER —The point I was making was the the Hague Convention is a treaty. As such, the Commonwealth, by bringing in this legislation, is able to obtain additional legislative power which would not normally be available under the Australian Constitution. There would appear to be a bipartisan approach to the principles to be enacted by this Bill; however, as honourable members on both sides of the House realise, the price of liberty, especially with the Labor Government temporarily in control, is eternal vigilance. Any act of Parliament concerning marriage is of fundamental importance to this House and all Australians. Therefore, I was somewhat concerned over implications which could have followed from the title of this Bill. It is supposed to be the Marriage Amendment Bill, but thankfully it is not intended to amend marriage itself, as one might think. One never knows with the socialists. It is apparent that the Marriage Act 1961 is to be the subject of surgery, although fortunately it will not be subjected to Labor's Medicare fiasco. The Bill seeks to ensure that wherever possible there should be similar rules throughout the world concerning marriage. It is to be hoped that the international community as a whole will embrace the Convention as time goes on. As an honourable member on this side of the House mentioned previously, at this time very few countries have embraced the Convention. It is a direct result of Australia's immigration policy in recent years that large numbers of people involved in Australian marriages are overseas born. In fact, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) mentioned, just two years ago, in 1983, 35 per cent of all marriages in this country had at least one party born elsewhere. The percentage may well now be higher. There is a possibility, however remote, that some of those marriages could be invalidated because of the fact that one party may not have been a British subject, an Australian citizen or domiciled in this country. It is important, wherever possible, to ensure certainty in relation to such a basic matter as marriage. Speaking generally, if this Bill is passed our law will provide that, subject to certain exceptions, the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was effected will govern the validity or otherwise of that marriage. I wonder, quite seriously, whether the Marriage Amendment Bill is the appropriate place for clauses which endeavour to make a contribution to the current public debate occurring throughout the world in relation to in vitro fertilisation and associated matters. I have the utmost sympathy for childless married couples. We need to have a full, frank and vigorous discussion in the community on these matters, with a view to reaching broad agreement in accordance with Christian principles. Any such deliberations would, among other things, include consideration of the rights and responsibilities of parents. However, I am pleased that all parties in this place recognise that while uniform laws in this area are desirable these matters are to be considered as areas of State responsibility. I hope the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General will in due course proceed with the implementation of uniform law consistent with the Christian principles I have mentioned before, through, to use the favourite term of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), 'consensus' in the community. As an aside, I might mention that this country needs from the Government less of the 'con' and a lot more of the 'sensus'. I suppose we could say that at least the issue has not yet been consigned to one of Labor's seemingly innumerable summits. There is mention in the Bill of the Family Law Act and I am pleased because it provides me with a brief opportunity to comment on the Act and the Family Court of Australia. Like many members on both sides of the House, I have been concerned at the considerable delays in the Family Court. In fact, it can take more than 18 months for hearings of contested custody and property settlement matters. In addition I am worried about the apparent lack of respect by some people for the Family Court, and we must look at the reasons. Marriage breakdown is a very emotive area and as Family Court judges have been subjected to outrageous violence and threats, and the need to have armed bodyguards and round the clock protection, it is time to consider whether changes should be made. Of course, like all others in this chamber, on both sides, I utterly condemn violence. Prior to Gough Whitlam, Senator Lionel Murphy-- Mr Cobb —A dreadful duo. Mr SLIPPER —They were a terrible duo; I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his contribution. Prior to them and their infamous band of socialists embarking on Labor's family law experiment-- Mr Maher —A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Offensive words were used against a justice of the High Court who is a former member of another place, and I ask that you rule them out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I regret that my attention was diverted and I did not hear the alleged offensive words. I will leave the matter to the honourable member for Fisher. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Prior to Gough Whitlam, Senator Lionel Murphy and their infamous band of socialists embarking on Labor's family law experiment, matrimonial matters were dealt with in an impartial, respectful and just manner by the ordinary legal system. Previously, for decades, perhaps for more than a hundred years, the begowned and bewigged judges presiding from elevated positions in the court-room in a relatively anonymous way decided the same highly charged, emotive issues which are now the responsibility of the Family Court. Decisions by and large were accepted by the parties. They felt they had a fair go. Those judges did not go in fear of their lives; they were not locked up for their own protection. Mr Maher —A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know the honourable member is a new member, but debate on the Family Law Act is irrelevant to this legislation. This Bill deals with the Hague Convention which has nothing to do with the Family Law Act. I do ask you to draw the attention of this new member to that fact. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not know that the honourable member has gone far away from the content of the Bill before the House, but I ask him to become relevant. Mr SLIPPER —The judges did not go in fear of their lives. They were not virtually locked up for their own protection. In view of the recent tragedies and other problems, the Government should consider either phasing out the Family Court as we know it and reinvesting jurisdiction in the State supreme courts or, alternatively, remodelling the Family Court along traditional supreme court lines. I do not intend to impugn the integrity of Family Court judges but a decision on this matter is one of top priority. Without wanting to be facetious in any way, it is in every sense a matter of life and death. I am pleased to see that the Bill provides for a widening of marriage education. Anything that can be done to reduce the present unacceptable degree of marriage breakdown should be encouraged. I believe that counselling and marriage education are vitally important and that moneys should be set aside to help people discuss their problems and resolve them if possible. Probably against my own pecuniary interests as a lawyer, I have not hesitated to refer matrimonial clients to a local clergyman or other qualified person for counselling, because if difficulties can be isolated, then with good will and effort a marriage can get over its rocky period and be saved. It is important that every opportunity be taken to preserve marriages where this is practicable. I am totally opposed to any suggestion that the Government should deny ordinary Australians the right to enter into contracts with marriage celebrants for the provision of services at fees to be agreed by the parties. I support the amendment which is to be moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). It may be helpful to have a scale to be used as a guide, but citizens ought not to be denied the right to make their own arrangements with marriage celebrants, some of whom are more popular than others. Perhaps they do their job better, but in any event they are more popular. I would like people to be able to make their own financial and contractual arrangements with marriage celebrants. Personally, I would like everyone to want to be married in church. However, a farce is made of a Christian marriage service when people arrange for the same because of the niceness of the church buildings, the decor or the surroundings. Therefore, marriage celebrants have a role to perform and they and their clients ought not to be denied one of the basic tenets of free enterprise-the right to agree on a charge for services to be rendered. We on this side of the House are absolutely against this proposed further infringement of personal liberty by the Hawke socialist Government. In summing-up, undoubtedly the passage of this Bill will cause some benefits to flow to the community, but there are also grave constitutional implications which could amount to a subversion of the Constitution by stealth. If the Federal Government wants to increase its power at the expense of the States, it should do so only with the concurrence of the Australian people through the referendum procedure. On balance, this Bill would have to be described at best as a mixed blessing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(7.14) —in reply-Thereat. I warn the honourable member for Warringah. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith) —I am astounded. If honourable members opposite want to go on with the debate, we will go on with it tomorrow. I am taking only a few minutes. Speakers on this side have cut their times by arrangement, and the Opposition talks as if there had been no arrangement. Mr MacKellar —There has been no arrangement. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There was an arrangement about speakers. I understand that we thought we could finish this Bill this evening. If the honourable members opposite do not want that, we will not go on with the debate. Mr MacKellar —We have got people waiting to speak on the adjournment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member will have an adjournment debate if he will allow me to finish. I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition at times. The amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is not acceptable. It relates to the parties being able to negotiate their own arrangements in respect of fees paid to marriage celebrants. I think it is a matter of note that in 1979, when the honourable gentleman's party was in power, it altered the fees by way of Schedule. There was not any of this dramatic agitation that we have had this evening, as if this were some socialist measure trying to regulate the rights of parties. In fact, when honourable members opposite were in power in 1979 they could well have done away with setting fees. Such a procedure gives some recognition and stability to what would be an appropriate fee. I do not think it in any way prevents parties from paying more if they want to. I cannot understand the sort of nonsensical argument put this evening that people can pay only the amount set down. We are not for one minute suggesting that the parties could not pay more. Therefore, the amendment does not have the validity that the honourable member claims. Some worthwhile contributions were made about uniformity of legislation relating to in vitro fertilisation. I acknowledge that this matter has been on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for some years, but we cannot get agreement from the States. Legislation has been enacted in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, so there is some uniformity. I want to make it clear that the Government, by simply referring to these procedures, is not making any statement about approval or disapproval of the procedures, because there is a lot of public concern about them. Nevertheless, we have to recognise the fact that they are being used and on that basis some attempt has been made, and we will try again, to get Attorneys-General across Australia to agree. I emphasise, and I ask honourable members to take note, that the States which have agreed are New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It is not altogether fair to make accusations that the Commonwealth wants to enter the field, but I think everyone would agree that there should be some uniformity of legislation affecting marriage and the family. We are not getting the co-operation that we need. If one looks at family law in respect of custody and the children of the marriage, one will see an emphasis on State rights. In respect of this matter the Family Law Council is currently finalising a report on a sub-committee chaired by Mr Justice Asche, a senior judge of the Family Court, on the wider social issues raised by the new procedures which have been the subject of debate. It is expected that this report will be available in the near future. Other matters were raised in respect of the Family Court which I do not want to waste time on, except to say that the Family Law Council has prepared a report which I hope to table in the next 14 days. It relates to a number of issues which the Parliament may want to debate. Again let me make the point that the family law legislation was a non-party measure in which people with a wide-ranging set of views participated. I think the only other matters of significance were the questions raised about the two new family law centres. They are pilot centres which will try to assist people to identify problems which may lead to matrimonial breakdown. Again, we have a problem in respect of excessive litigation in very few adversary combat cases-the figure is 12 per cent-relating to property and custody. This litigation is costing a lot of money. These centres will be beneficial in two ways if they can get the parties to agree without that sort of combat: Perhaps the parties can reach reconciliation, and let us hope they can; if they cannot, at least the bitterness of extensive and costly litigation can be avoided. I do not want to say any more about a number of matters raised, except to point out that some were outside the ambit of the Bill. I appreciate the co-operation that has been given. I make the point that a number of the matters that have been raised will be the subject of future reports or further deliberation at meetings of Attorneys-General. I cannot see any real value in the amendment. It is a method of indicating to marriage celebrants that they have a responsibility and a special privilege. We believe it is appropriate to determine a reasonable fee by regulation. I make the point that there is plenty of precedent for that because the regulations have been varied from time to time. I thank honourable members for their participation and I hope they will support the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(7.23) —I move: Clause 15, page 5, omit proposed sub-section (4), substitute the following sub-section: '' '(4) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a person, not being a minister of religion, who is authorized under sub-section (2) to solemnize marriages, from contracting with the parties to an intended marriage for the payment, for the solemnization of that marriage by that person, of a fee that exceeds the fee prescribed by regulations made under section 120 that is applicable to the solemnization of that marriage by that person.'.''. In the course of the second reading debate I made plain, I think, the purpose of the amendment which I have now moved on behalf of the Opposition. I feel I must repeat what I said, albeit briefly, because the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) seems to be under some misapprehension as to what the point is. It is a very simple point. We need to keep only two facts in our minds to understand that point. The first fact is this: the Marriage Amendment Bill proposed by the Government provides, and I am paraphrasing here, that a civil marriage celebrant is not-I repeat, not-entitled to demand payment for the solemnisation of a marriage by that person of a fee that exceeds the fee prescribed by regulations made under the Act. In other words, the Bill provides that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge a fee over and above the fee which the Government fixes as the appropriate fee, even if the parties who are free and consenting adults agree on a separate, a different, or indeed a higher fee. The second fact is that the amendment moved by the Opposition provides-again I am paraphrasing-that nothing in the Act shall prevent people from contracting to pay a fee which exceeds the fee provided by the regulations. That is a very clear issue and the Attorney-General should understand what the point is. However, instead of replying to the argument, what the Attorney-General has done has been, first, to say that he cannot see any value in the amendment and, secondly, to show that he simply does not understand the issue. He says there is nothing wrong with fixing a fee. What is wrong with it, and this is the part which is new and which has not existed in the Act before, is that the Government's Bill says in effect: 'We will fix the fee for a civil marriage celebrant, but not only will we fix the fee, we will make it illegal for a civil marriage celebrant to charge over and above that fee even if the parties who are free, consenting adults agree on a different fee'. It is really no wonder that the Attorney-General does not understand this because members of the Labor Party do not seem to understand that free people, on matters touching their personal relationships, often want to come to free arrangements and bargains between themselves without a government dictating to them and telling them what the charge will be. What we say on this side of the House is that people are free to name their own arrangements. If there is going to be any restriction on the arrangement which free people wish to make, freely entering into a bargain, there must be an overwhelming case made out as to why that restriction on their freedom is to be written into legislation. We say that no case has been made out in this particular circumstance that we have before us tonight as to why the rights of parties to enter into an arrangement freely between themselves should be restricted. Indeed, it is worse than that in this case because the Government has not even attempted to show such a case. There is nothing in the second reading speech tending to show why there should be this restriction on individual freedom. I have already spoken on this issue in the second reading debate and I do not wish to delay the Committee any further. I simply say what I have said because originally it was extraordinary to me why the Government could not understand the difference between us and what the amendment is designed to achieve. I hope that as a result of what I have said it is now clear to the Government. I hope that on this occasion it will allow, despite the fact that it is a socialist Government, this small modicum of freedom for individual people. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(7.27) —I repeat what I said before: Fees have been the subject of regulation. In fact, the present fee was the subject of a regulation change last year. I make the point that it has been periodically changed, particularly during 1979. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) makes the point that there seems to be some real problem in this legislation authorising that the fee to be charged is that specified in the regulation. This has basically been the situation. In fact, honourable members will notice in the second reading speech that there can be ancillary charges for items such as flowers and music. I do not think that a lot of emphasis can be placed on the fact that there is a prescribed fee in the regulation when it can obviously be altered by arrangement. The proposal now of a fee always being the subject of identification in the regulation was to indicate to people that there was a fee and they would at least have knowledge of it. I have no doubt that in the spirit of private enterprise they might want to shop around. If it is left on the basis that there is not going to be any charge prescribed, the view is that excessive charges may be made by people for no valid reason other than that they feel they have a select clientele because the authorisation of civil marriage celebrants is basically related to geographical position. Mr MacKellar —Who is to say it is excessive? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not saying that the fee is excessive. I make the point that the fee has been set periodically on a rising scale. Mr MacKellar —You said it may be excessive. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It could be excessive if there was not indication of a fee as the regulation now puts in place. In other words, it is thought that civil marriage celebrants might agree among themselves to charge a much higher fee than would normally be reasonable. The regulation is a guideline, if nothing else. We reject the idea that there will be some difficulty about this matter. I make the point that there has been no difficulty up to the present. It is merely a question of giving a scale of the appropriate fees to the people who are interested in the amount to be paid to marriage celebrants. There have been no complaints by anybody about this matter. There have been no complaints about the fact that there has been a ceiling in the Act. The idea is to give people an opportunity to say that there is in fact a fee. After all, lawyers and doctors have their fees fixed. Mr N. A. Brown —Why put it in the Act then? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Is the honourable member suggesting that people should not have some guidelines? Admittedly, other arrangements can be made outside the regulations. But in this case if people inquire they will find that there is a a fee. If people inquire about whether arrangements can be made to pay for additional flowers and music, they will find that they can. Mr MacKellar —What about the fee for the service? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The fee for the service is set by regulation. I have no doubt that an enterprising person would not find that a difficulty. If it was a question of a person wanting to go to a particular celebrant who said: 'I have a few other ancillary services I would like you to avail yourself of such as music and flowers', I would assume that the person concerned would be more interested in the marriage than in the music and the flowers. On that basis, I cannot see any validity in this amendment and it is rejected. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the membership of joint committees as follows: Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform Senators Sir John Carrick, Harradine, Macklin, Robert Ray and Richardson have been appointed by the Senate. Mrs Jakobsen, Mr Lamb, Mr Lee and Mr Scott have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr MacKellar has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Blunt has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Joint Select Committee on Video Material Senators Elstob, Harradine, Walters and Zakharov have been appointed by the Senate. Mr Charles, Mrs Jakobsen and Dr Klugman have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Jull has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Adermann has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(7.32) —Answering a Dorothy Dix question in the House today, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a totally unwarranted attack on the economy of Queensland and the economic management ability of the Queensland National Party Government. Not only was his attack unwarranted, but also it was completely wrong in its assumption. The fact is that the Queensland economy has a basic underlying strength which provides a sound basis for sustained growth in the longer term. Quite obviously, I cannot in the time available provide a major resume of the Queensland economy, but I can more than adequately put the lie to the Prime Minister's statements. For a start, the Prime Minister conveniently ignores the fact that primary responsibility for economic management in Australia rests with the Commonwealth Government. State governments have to dovetail their policies in with Commonwealth policies. Further-this is especially so in the case of export oriented States such as Queensland-they cannot isolate themselves from the world economic situation and international market prospects. The fact is that under this Federal Labor Government free enterprise States have been saddled with such things as full wage indexation and ever increasing taxes and charges. This Labor Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's history. If the Prime Minister gets his way, he will surpass even his own record and try to cripple the free enterprise States all the more. Despite the burden of a Federal Labor Government-a Government bent on mass socialisation and nationalisation-and despite what the Prime Minister would have us believe, Queensland is showing a well above average performance compared with the rest of Australia. Latest available figures show that private capital investment in Queensland represents 17.4 per cent of the Australian total. Housing completions account for 24.5 per cent of the Australian total; total building represents nearly 30 per cent; and exports, 23.7 per cent. Queensland consistently accounts for a major share of Australia's mining and agricultural exports-22 per cent of mining output; 23 per cent of agricultural output; and 22 per cent of total Australian exports in the 1982-83 financial year, which is the latest year for which figures are available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In addition, although Queensland, with 12 per cent, has a less than proportionate share of total Australian manufacturing output, manufacturing industry in Queensland is far less dependent on tariff and quota protection than that in other States, especially New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Also, if the Prime Minister cared to look at some other statistics, he would discover that over the four years ended 30 June 1981-the latest figures available-Queensland's Budget performance consistently exceeded that of every other State in Australia. So much for the allegation of economic mismanagement. The Prime Minister based his argument almost entirely on the fact that Queensland's unemployment rate is above average when compared with that of the rest of Australia. Perhaps he is not aware of the fact that the State is addressing the challenge of unemployment through a high level committee which is expected to report within the next week or so. I bet that it will come up with some better long term suggestions to meet the unemployment problems than this Federal Labor Administration could even dream up. Furthermore, Queensland has undertaken a $600m capital works program which it expects will create more than 12,000 man years of additional employment directly and about 40,000 man years of employment totally. Yet again this Labor Prime Minister has demonstrated what he is really about. He is about deceiving the Australian population and trying to compete with that great Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The Australian people and the people of Queensland are aware of what he is up to. Mr Speaker, in quite simple terms that you will understand, what he talked about in this Parliament today in answer to a dorothy dixer is simply rubbish and it just will not wash. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(7.37) —I will send a copy of a recent Queensland study of the economy to the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). I rise to advance the case for a rethink of the present system of delivering government services to the public, especially in the less populated areas. To this end I propose a pilot scheme to set up what I am calling a one stop community services centre. I refer honourable members to the North-West One Stop Welfare Centre in Coburg. This concept is ideal for small towns, especially for country service centres. I see it as the ultimate in decentralised servicing. I see it as ideal for the developing mining towns of central Queensland. I believe that it is the ultimate in taking government administration to the people. If this type of system were implemented I am sure our constituents would benefit greatly. It would mean that services such as pension matters with the Department of Social Security, immigration issues, employment matters, legal aid, veterans' affairs, and Medicare could all be serviced at one point in these less populated regions, without the need for a huge pyramid of government departments. It could also involve State services and even local community services. One could add to these centres child care, consumer affairs and so on, but the main thrust would be to provide an information service. It would also have broader aims and objectives, the first being to improve the ease and effectiveness of public access to government services. Honourable members must appreciate that many people miss out on their entitlements and benefits, in part because they do not know they exist and in part because they cannot get to those services and benefits. Such a system would also mean a shift in the forms of referral and decision-making, a shift closer to the clients or public affected. It would also improve co-ordination between the officials responsible at the local level. The role played by these centres could be virtually unlimited: The provision of information, help with the filling out of forms, the reviewing of claims, the receiving of claims, and making representations when there are complaints. It could be a multi-faceted role. As I have already stated, we could add to these activities advice on entitlements and eligibility and information in regard to appeal processes. We could have an extension of the present agency approach that we see in the Department of Social Security. That Department provides welfare officers in some country towns for some 10 hours a week and those people provide an excellent service, but it is not good enough. It is a single service and covers only pensions from the Department of Social Security. There is a need to have an amalgamated approach where very senior officers can be appointed in small townships that may have only 6,000 or 7,000 people but a catchment area of 20,000 or 30,000. Biloela in central Queensland is typical of those types of townships. I see this as decentralisation in decision-making. It is a system that can work. The agency systems has worked and the welfare officer system has worked. I assure honourable members that this pilot scheme I am advocating, which has already been approved in Coburg, will work. I urge the Government to undertake a number of pilot schemes. Obviously, from a parochial point of view, I would like to see them in my own region. In the central highlands we have a number of new mining towns. The populations are only small, sometimes 2,000 people, sometimes 1,700 people, but they are scattered over an area of about 250 kilometres. If one township was selected to be a community services centre that township could service all the people in the immediate area and perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 people over the wider area. Dysart is a typical example of the central highlands where this could happen. Biloela is an example in the Callide-Dawson Valley. I am sure honourable members have typical examples as well. Biloela, for instance, is a small town but it has a huge catchment area of some 21,000 people that it services. Dysart is typical of the small town in the midst of many others. Consideration must be given to ways of upgrading the delivery of Commonwealth services in country and rural areas. Consideration must also be given to people who simply cannot afford to make contact with the provincial and capital cities. I ask as well that consideration be given to the use of the 008 phone call system. Governments in the past have used this when implementing or introducing a new scheme, but then that facility is stopped. At this moment I understand that whilst the Health Commission cannot introduce Medicare centres everywhere, the 008 facility would solve most of the problems. I urge the Government, through the various Ministers, to consider this matter. I suggest that the local personal approach is far better, however, than the phone call and it is for this reason that I urge that serious consideration be given to the one-stop community services centre. Mr JULL(Fadden)(7.41) —This is my first speech on my return to this place after a 20-month enforced exile. I think it is a pity that we are not given the privilege of making a maiden speech on such an occasion. The first thing I noticed here is that the rights of the back bencher, the private member of this Parliament, seem incredibly to have been eroded during the period I was away-and it seems to be getting worse. Notices of motion are no longer read in the Parliament. Tonight private members have been deprived by the curtailment of the adjournment debate. This is one observation I make on returning to this place. I am not here to speak about that tonight; I am here to speak about something that I believe is of vital importance and which should be of tremendous interest to every Australian. As Australia heads towards 1988 I am sure we all look forward to the many great events that will be undertaken around the nation during that tremendous year. I would like to focus the attention of the House on what will probably be Australia's greatest event, and that is the advent of Expo 88 in Brisbane during that year. Expo 88 promises to be the biggest event in Australia's history. It will run from April until October 1988 and will bring the focus of the world not only to Brisbane or Queensland but indeed to the whole of Australia. I have to express some concern about what seems to be the old Australian syndrome which is already starting to creep into some areas of the Press. Already we read that Expo 88 is likely to be a disaster, that nobody is really interested in it and nobody will come. During my 20 months of enforced exile from this place I had the privilege of serving on one of the Expo 88 committees. The forward planning and the interest shown from around the world in Expo 88 will ensure that it will be one of the greatest events in our history. Expo 88 has the theme of leisure in the age of technology. Never before, I believe, has an exposition had such a broad theme, and never before in such early stages has there been such tremendous interest, not only from nations around the world but also from big corporations. I was delighted to read today in the Brisbane Press that Australia Post has already undertaken to provide postal facilities there which it believes will exist in the year 2010. I think Australia Post should be congratulated for that move. The British Government has already made an announcement that it will be exhibiting at Expo 88. The Japanese Government has now indicated it will be there too, and the Soviet Union will exhibit at Expo 88. As well, some of the world's greatest corporations will be on show. What does this mean to Brisbane, to Queensland and indeed to the whole of Australia? The initial survey that was undertaken for Australia's bid for Expo 88 indicated that that exposition will attract no fewer than 8 million visits during the six-month period that it is on. This means that Australia's international tourist figures will be boosted by an estimated 792,000 during that period. Yet the ramifications of Expo go much wider than just that six-month period during which it is to be staged, because for a full 12 months before and six months after Brisbane will be very much a hive of activity. In Brisbane at the moment we can already see the evidence of what is being done in terms of job creation, with two international hotels already under construction and another three to be built by the time Expo opens in April 1988. They are very significant figures. The point is that Australia will be very much in world focus during that time. I believe that it is up to all Australians to give their absolute support in the lead-up to Expo and during that event. For example, it amazed me that the Australian Tourist Commission had not even listed it as one of Australia's bicentennial events until recent weeks. That is an absolute disgrace. I commend the Federal Government for the support it is giving to the Queensland Government and to the whole Expo authority to make sure that it will be one of the great events that Australia has seen and that it will be very much the focal point of Australia's bicentennial celebrations. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(7.46) —Yesterday I was prevented from attending the funeral of a great citizen of the Western Suburbs and a first class and number one citizen of Blacktown, Alderman Jim Lynch. I hope that in future in this Parliament we will be able to revise our procedures which prevented the three honourable members who cover the Blacktown City local government area from attending that funeral and paying their respects. I take this opportunity to place a few remarks on the public record for Alderman James Patrick Lynch, or Big Jim as he was popularly and commonly known. Jim had been Mayor for three and a half years. He took over from a very distinguished Mayor, John Aqualina, who had established an enviable reputation in Blacktown. I wish to say that Jim Lynch established an even greater reputation. The quality of life in Blacktown City has been improved in innumerable ways through Jim's efforts. One has only to look at the buildings that were put up. In fact, he ought to go down in history as Jim the builder. There was an outstanding building program, including roads and bridges. In addition, he cared about environmental issues. He originally thought of the 90-hectare reserve, Nurragingy, that I mentioned in my maiden speech. He used funds to green Rooty Hill, his home town, and he was quite imaginative in what he did in terms of industrial development for Blacktown. It is only recently that about 450 hectares in three industrial estates have been released to promote and attract industry to the area. Indeed, he launched an industrial promotion program. The three Federal members, one on the opposite side of the House, and all the citizens of Blacktown reach out to Alderman Jim Lynch's family, his wife Judith, and sympathise with them in their very sad and tragic loss. I am sure he will be missed by all my constituents. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. Mr MILES(Braddon)(7.48) —I wish to draw the attention of the House once again to the assets test which is one of those pieces of legislation which are callous, iniquitous and quite unfair to many people in Australia. I draw attention to a few example which have arisen in my electorate. One is an elderly couple in the Devonport-Latrobe region. He is a 66-year old farmer who is crippled and who lives with his wife. His son works that property and has done so for 15 years. He has four children. The average farm income, according to his accountant, is $5,420 for the last five years. He works a 100-acre farm which was valued at $100,000 on government valuations. When he submitted this for the assets test, officials from the Department of Social Security decided that it should be valued at $125,000. That is 25 per cent more than what he had claimed. The consequence for this family is that this man's pension has now been cut from $118 a week to $35.30 a week, with no fringe benefits. It is said that this Labor Government is a fair Government, interested in equality and equity. Yet we ask the elderly people of Australia, such as those in the family to which I refer, to pay for their electricity, food, petrol, clothes and paint their houses out of $35.30 a week. That is what the assets test is doing to people. The son has done his best to earn other income by renting other properties. There is no way that he is able to afford to buy the property because he has worked on his parents' farm for a pittance over several years. I have another example within my electorate in which the officers of the Department of Social Security have included not only the normal assets as part of the assets test, but also what they call 'business value'. I do not think I have heard of this before. They have worked out that this person has $1,406 in his bank account, house contents worth $4,000, a motor vehicle worth $3,000, and his property value has been assessed at $87,462. As well as that, the Social Security officers have put on his form what they call 'assessed business value'. In other words, they seem to be interested in another aspect of this person's assets. It has nothing to do with what he owns. They seem to want to estimate the value of a person's good will in regard to his business. The assets test is setting people against one another. Many people in the small rural areas of Australia believe that people who live in the cities get off scott free, with substantial money tied up in their own homes. Yet when people in rural areas own something to the value of $100,000 to $150,000, they lose their pension. There is no sense of justice or equality in the assets test. It was supposed to hit the wealthy people. These people are not wealthy. There is no way that anybody could imagine that they are wealthy. I challenge the Government to do something about it. I was pleased to see in the paper today that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), as Chairman of the Caucus Primary Industry Committee, has approached the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in regard to this matter. I hope that the Government bears in mind the needs of the people of this country because their needs are great. I also challenge this Government to return the extra $60 million-odd which it will get from the assets test over and above what it expected to get to the people who are in receipt of pensions. The Government said that the reason it introduced the assets test was that it would have more money to give to people who are in receipt of pensions. This type of legislation is iniquitous. I hope that the Labor Government in future will think through the ramifications before it introduces any further legislation of this nature. Mr GEAR(Canning)(7.53) —During Question Time today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) outlined some of the Government's achievements. In particular, he drew attention to the fact that since we have been in government we have created 360,000 jobs, compared with the miserable effort of the coalition parties which created 340,000 jobs in their seven years in government. Yet I believe there is an outside chance that we may not be able to reach the target of 500,000 jobs that we promised in three years' time. If the Government fails to reach that three-year target of 500,000 jobs, it will be because of the efforts of the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who is sabotaging his economy. I believe he is doing that because he has been reported as seeking to destroy the Federal Government as his last great achievement. Some of us will remember what happened in 1975 when the Queensland Premier took advantage of the death of a Labor senator to send to the Parliament a renegade senator who helped to oust the Whitlam Government-a democratically elected government. Sir Joh seemed to think that was all right. He cannot do that any more because we have changed the provisions by way of referendum so that if the Parliament loses a senator of any political persuasion he must be replaced by a person from his own party. That is a vindication of the people's perception of what was fair. It was something that the Queensland Premier never thought of in 1975. How could he get back at a government that is so successful, has lowered inflation, created jobs and has the economic growth on the board that his Government could never achieve? What he is doing is scuttling the Queensland economy because it is on the downhill run anyway. There is a clever diversionary tactic here. If one looks at the figures for the Queensland economy-notwithstanding the statistics put out by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh)-one finds that the present rate of unemployment in Queensland mentioned by the Prime Minister is 11.3 per cent. In Australia it is 8.3 per cent. That is absolutely terrible. Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia's history. Bankruptcy of small firms in Queensland is up by 27 per cent. A stack more businesses are going to hit the fence because of the recent Queensland power dispute. The figure of 27 per cent is a record. Per capita income in Queensland is the lowest of any State on the mainland. The only people who beat the Queenslanders are the Tasmanians. Both States have conservative governments. As we all know, Sir Joh has taken on the unions. One starts to wonder why. The Chairman of the Griffith University School of Social Industrial Administration, Dr Peter Coaldrake, is reported in an article in the Age as saying-he may be right but I do not think he is: Sir Joh's latest battle was much bigger than maintaining Queensland's power supplies or achieving a cherished goal of crushing the union movement (through draconian no-strike legislation). The article continues: Dr Coaldrake said that with a State election scheduled within eighteen months the power crisis had given Sir Joh something to divert attention from the badly performing Queensland economy. 'The power crisis provides a wonderful way whereby the state Government in a political sense can deflect blame for the economy from itself to the unions. One can see from a mile away what Sir Joh is trying to do. The economy in Queensland is going down. So Sir Joh picks out the unions and takes on a battle with them. He has a convenient scapegoat, but as the Queensland economy goes down it subtracts from the Australian economy. As we have said, we will create 500,000 jobs even if we have a lead boot in Queensland. If all States in Australia pull together the goal of creating 500,000 jobs certainly will be within our reach. What is the Queensland Premier doing? Mr Wright —Nothing. Mr GEAR —He is doing something. An article in the Age on 15 March stated: The Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen, could not wait to get on board the USS Buchanan, the warship banned by New Zealand in the ANZUS treaty controversy, when it berthed at Brisbane yesterday. With demonstrators being arrested outside wharf gates, the Premier diverted a flight back from Roma- I will be charitable and say that he was on government business. I do not know what he was doing in Roma. However, he diverted his flight to get on the USS Buchanan so that he could greet the captain. Here is what the conservatives love the most: Demonstrators being arrested outside and Joh on board the USS Buchanan. Mr Hicks —He is a loyal Australian. Mr GEAR —Of course he is a loyal Australian. So are we loyal Australians. The ANZUS Treaty has never been in better shape since we came into government. There is no doubt that the Queensland Government is deliberately slowing down Australian economic recovery in an attempt to deny the Federal Government the full economic recovery it has initiated. When we measure Australia's growth at the end of our three-year term we should put in a positive adjustment for Queensland because obviously what the Premier is trying to do is to wreck his own economy, battle it out with the unions and in some way slow down the economic recovery we have started. Not even Premier Gray in Tasmania has the gall to do that. But do not worry, Mr Speaker. We will reach the 500,000 job target without Queensland. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(7.58) —Tomorrow is cut-over day for the assets test scheme for pensions administered by the Department of Social Security. Of course it was on 14 March that pensions administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs were cut over to a scheme which has been shown to be shot through with anomaly after anomaly. I support the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and many other honourable members who have drawn attention to these anomalies. I am prepared even to support the members of the Caucus who yesterday revolted against aspects of the assets test which led to a half-baked assurance in the media this morning that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) would review aspects of the assets test. I challenge the Minister for Social Security to come into this House tonight in the ten-minute extension available to him on the eve of the assets test cut-over and explain what time-table he will apply for looking at a review of the anomalies associated with the assets test, as he indicated in the media this morning that he would. There are hundreds upon hundreds of pensioners across Australia-- Mr Hodgman —Thousands. Mr TIM FISCHER —Indeed, thousands of pensioners have been ruined in a very severe way by the application of the assets test. I regret to say that the matter of suicide has been raised. I regret to say further that I am advised of one case where the suicide was related specifically to the introduction of the assets test. It will be an acid test of the assets test to see what is the rate of suicide in the over 65-year-olds for the months of March and April 1985. However, I will not dwell on that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Hawker to move- That this House: (1) expresses its concern that on several occasions properties have been valued by Taxation Office valuers for the purpose of the Assets Test at over double their shire valuation and that these valuations have been carried out without any physical inspection of the properties; and (2) calls on the Government to immediately withdraw the Pension Assets Test as it is causing untold hardship. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 20 march 1985: Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 11-Reserve Allowance and Recreation Leave Bonus.