Tuesday, 26 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Attorney-General to his diverse positions on the New South Wales police tapes, namely, that he found it difficult to make a decision on the matter because he was being given conflicting advice, that the police involved were not entitled to indemnity, and that the matter of indemnities is an unresolved question. Given that the fight against crime has been impeded for months because of the Attorney-General's seeming inability, at least to date, to come to a decision, will he now give the House an assurance that indemnities will be given so that the fight against organised crime can proceed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government is most anxious that the fight against organised crime always proceeds. The Leader of the Opposition will recall that Mr Justice Stewart's commission related to the authenticity of material gathered from 1976 to 1981 when the honourable gentleman's Party was in power. Of course, as the information was then available one must ask what happened about the pursuit of organised crime in that period. Let me make it very clear that the period the honourable gentleman is talking about concerns his period of office. Certainly there are matters now before me relating to whether it would not be appropriate to consider indemnities. I have had the difficulty of Mr Temby saying that in those particular circumstances an indemnity should not be given. There is the added position that any evidence given to the Royal Commissioner cannot be used against the person giving it, in the sense of a prosecution. In other words, admissions made to the Royal Commissioner could be used in evidence. Nevertheless, the police concerned have requested indemnities. I propose tomorrow to see again Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby together to see whether we can reconcile that situation because I think there is new matter developing. That is the thrust of the honourable gentleman's question. There is new matter. We are very anxious to ensure that all criminals are brought to justice. So my view, even though I have not had a chance to discuss it with Mr Justice Stewart, is to say that, wherever he is of the opinion that evidence can be obtained that would lead to the prosecution of any criminal and he recommends an indemnity, I see no reason why I should not give it. Mr GEAR —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy explain why the import parity price for indigenous crude oil has not fallen along with the prices of overseas crude oils, thus resulting in lower petroleum prices in Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —Crude oil prices overseas have fallen only in United States dollars. Recently the fall in the Australian dollar relative to the United States dollar has more than offset the reduction of the price of overseas crude oils. Therefore, lower retail petrol prices have not been possible at this time. We are not Robinson Crusoe in that either. Many other oil importing countries have had similar experiences. The Government has been consistent in applying the import parity pricing policy and did reduce Australian prices on 1 April 1983, 1 July 1983 and 1 January 1984. Mr Howard —It is a very good policy. Mr BARRY JONES —I am glad to hear the endorsement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the leadership aspirant of the Liberal Party. The IPP policy results in Australian crude oil being priced at the cost of replacing it with imported crude oil of a similar quality. Relevant factors used in its determination include the cost of importing Arab light purchased at the official government selling price, transport costs, the United States dollar-Australian dollar exchange rate, and an allowance for differences in the quality between the marker and indigenous crudes. As Australia is expected to be a net importer of petroleum over the long term, the principle of pricing Australian crude at its replacement cost provides a sound and stable basis for pricing indigenous crudes. It has also provided a healthy environment for petroleum exploration and development in Australia. The Government will of course continue to monitor the situation closely and will keep all options under review. Account will be taken of movements in both overseas crude oil prices and the Australian dollar exchange rate when the Government comes to consider the price to apply after the next adjustment date, which will be 1 May 1985. Mr N. A. BROWN —I refer the Attorney-General to the New South Wales Premier's statement that it was possible that the New South Wales tapes extended back to 1967, and to the Attorney-General's own statement that they extend to 1984, covering a much wider period. Now that the Attorney-General has agreed that it is likely indemnities will be granted to some New South Wales police, will he tell the House what investigations he has made to satisfy himself that Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference regarding the tapes and the powers available to him are sufficient to investigate all aspects of the tapes, and in particular that they are sufficient to explore effectively all of the aspects of organised crime that they disclose? Given that Mr Justice Stewart had limited terms of reference, are the terms of reference wide enough to pursue all those matters, including crimes which fall outside the authority of the National Crime Authority? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question is very relevant because, as the honourable member would know, the terms of reference were given in 1981, and they limit it purely to what is called activities related to Terrence John Clark and the Mr Asia syndicate. I think they are not sufficient; I think they have to be widened. The question then is getting the New South Wales Government also to give powers so that he has the powers of a royal commissioner, which he now has, which will give some advantage to get evidence from New South Wales. These are matters I am in the process of discussing. I welcome the honourable member's co-operation because it will require new letters patent. It will also require perhaps further amendment of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. All those matters, I assure the House, will be very much up front. In other words, what we have been talking about is not really the issue that faces us at present. We want to have as much information as we can get available to Mr Justice Stewart, and he will need information from New South Wales. I am assured that that Government will co-operate in the fullest possible manner. Mr BEDDALL —I ask the Treasurer: What evidence is there of the accuracy of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition approximately a month ago that retail sales were barely keeping ahead of inflation and that the retail sales figures must be extremely worrying for both retailers and the Government? Mr KEATING —I am very happy to report again that the retail sales figures out today completely refute the claims of the Leader of the Opposition which for months have been absurd in respect of almost any economic comment but particularly comment in respect of retail sales. Today's figures indicate that retail sales rose by 2 1/2 per cent in January. This is the fifth consecutive monthly increase. It means that retail sales are now nearly 10 per cent higher than they were in January 1984. An interesting thing is that the increase is not in a narrow area; it is across the board. The big rises in retail sales have been in a range of areas. Sales in department stores are up by 28 per cent on January 1984 figures; grocers' sales are up by 13.5 per cent, hotels' sales are up by 12.3 per cent, clothing stores' sales are up by 14.5 per cent, newsagents' sales are up by 18.6 per cent. So what we are seeing is a very broad movement across the board in consumption and retail sales. I do not want to dwell upon just one month's figures because we all know that one month's figures can be misleading. To get a more accurate picture, if we look at them on a quarterly basis we find that in the three months to January retail sales grew at a rate of 8.1 per cent higher than they did in the three months to January 1984. In other words, we are experiencing a real increase in retail sales of about 3 per cent, which, of course, is very high. That increase nails the Leader of the Opposition's mealy-mouthed statements in which he has tried to talk down the economy, which he and his Deputy have been trying to do for months, in respect of retail sales. It is further evidence of support for the prediction I made in the election campaign about consumption exceeding the Budget forecasts. That is supported also by the number of car registrations, which are running at their highest level since 1975. In terms of further positive pointers to the state of the economy, we see that the stock market yesterday rose to a record 821.2 points, which again indicates the general confidence of investors in the economy. In terms of the survey of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, we see there recorded continuing growth for industry, and job vacancies in the three months to February have risen. Other very hard data on the state of the economy is to be found in the employment figures released a couple of weeks ago, which showed an increase of 45,000 in the number of people employed for the month of February, with 360,000 jobs being created since April 1983. Some 110,000 were created this financial year. We are well on the way to the Budget target of 150,000 for this financial year. Unemployment has therefore declined from 10.4 per cent to 8.3 per cent. That is a dramatic decline from the very high levels of unemployment experienced under our predecessor. In respect of investment, may I also say that the Australian Statistician's survey records sharp increases in the attitude of business to investment expectations for the coming year. There have been sharp increases in investment for the December quarter. I also indicate again my confidence that the Budget forecasts of an increase in investment of 5 per cent will be either met or exceeded. With that, inflation has come down sharply to 5.1 per cent, from the 1.4 per cent increase we saw in December. What is happening in the economy is that the fundamentals are coming right, as they have under this Government's policies for two years. Real unit labour costs have returned to the levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Industrial disputation is at its lowest since the late 1960s. The profit share of gross domestic profit has been restored from 11.9 per cent in the first half of 1982-83 to 15.3 per cent in 1983-84. What we are seeing are the clearest signs of the broadening and strengthening of the recovery of the Australian economy. It means that the Budget estimates are on track. This is totally different from the attacks made by the Opposition, which seeks to focus on one statistic here and one statistic there, leaving out of its gaze the general improvement in the economy, the strengthening of the fundamentals, the restoration of the right factor shares in the economy and our dealing with the insidious problem of inflation. What we will always hear from the Opposition is a series of remarks about a particular month's statistic or some other obscure point but it fails to recognise the general improvement which is taking place. The Opposition is not kidding people in the business community, who for the first time in years not only can see light at the end of the tunnel but also are emerging from the tunnel into days when they can run a business with a decent level of profitability and when there are decent levels of consumption in the economy. The Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy are gravely mistaken if they think they can keep up this barrage of misinformation and abuse of the Government's economic performance when these records are nailing them for what they are-economic frauds, as they have always been. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and refers to his previous answer to the honourable member for Menzies. In the light of that answer it now becomes even more important to ensure full public understanding of the issue. I therefore ask: Subject to relevant editing so that there is no prejudicing of any possible prosecutions, will the Attorney now make public the advisings of Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby on this matter, which is of fundamental public importance, and if not, why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable gentleman would know, I have always been anxious to make both reports publicly available. In fact, I have made them available to the Opposition and also Senator Chipp, on a confidential basis which I know has been respected. I am in the difficult position of trying to persuade Mr Justice Stewart. I think there is value in having the reports tabled. He is just as adamant, because, as the Leader of the Opposition would personally know, a number of people are named in that report, that he will not have them named. I have asked him whether he would agree to an edited version from which all the names would be deleted. He said: 'Yes, but that also requires some editing of Mr Temby's report'. I hope by tomorrow morning I can get a solution so that we are able to table edited reports of each of those gentlemen. Mr HUMPHREYS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that the Department of Housing and Construction has rejected unsatisfactory material for works at the Brisbane Airport at a cost of $750,000? Mr WEST —Yes, that is a fact. The Department of Housing and Construction entered into four contracts with Blue Rock Quarries for the supply of crushed rock for the Brisbane Airport. It accepted the lowest tender. I understand that this all occurred during February 1983. There was some concern at the ability of the supplier to perform, but the contracts were let on the basis that the specifications would allow the rejection of any unsatisfactory material. However, by May 1983 it was apparent that a problem existed and the Department of Housing and Construction commenced rejection of material from Blue Rock Quarries which was intended for use in the new international Brisbane Airport car park. Blue Rock Quarries then commenced legal proceedings against the Department. Subsequently the Supreme Court found that, on the basis of the wording of the specification, the Department was not entitled to reject. At that point the Department accepted and paid for materials under that contract as decided by the court and used them in the non-critical areas of the car park. Subsequently the Department appealed and lost, again on the wording of the February 1983 specifications. We now reach the critical point of the story. The Department then did not accept further samples of materials for the more critical areas of the access roads, taxiways and runways of the new airport. The Department said that the material contained weathered material, was not hard and durable and ought not to be used in international airport construction. Mr Braithwaite —Full stop. Mr WEST —It is all right for members of the Opposition to talk. Surely by now they have woken up to the fact that there is some significance in the date February 1983. At any rate, in 1984 obviously a tough position had to be taken and the contracts were subsequently cancelled. Blue Rock Quarries then instituted legal action against the Department of Housing and Construction, claiming $1.3m worth of damages. In November 1984, on the advice of new counsel, the Department settled out of court for three-quarters of a million dollars. Mr Moore —How does he go in Cabinet, Bob? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that if honourable members cease interjecting the Minister will be able to complete his answer. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —Obviously I was concerned at the payout of $750,000 by the Department on the February 1983 contracts. I was concerned that the original February 1983 specifications were totally inadequate and that it had cost the Commonwealth $750,000. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. There are Standing Orders within this place that relate to the nature of matters that should normally be made by way of statement and not by way of response to a question. This answer is quite extreme in its length and I suggest that the Minister has now extended the normal licence that even you extend to him in the bounds of Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —I am as well aware of the Standing Orders as the Leader of the National Party of Australia is. The Standing Orders, so far as questions and answers are concerned, have been observed in this case. However, I do ask the Minister to round off his answer. Mr WEST —The honourable member for Griffith asked a question which is quite important to the Brisbane area. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister not aggravate the situation and complete his answer. Mr WEST —I then ordered an independent inquiry which was conducted by Professor L. K. Stevens, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne. Later today, after Question Time, I intend to table his report. Briefly, the professor found that the Department had acted properly in rejecting the material and in cancelling the contracts and he rejected any suggestion that there had been any deviousness on the part of the Commonwealth. He found further that the specifications relied upon were inadequate for their purpose. On reading Professor Stevens's findings, I instructed the Department to review its specifications to ensure that in future they will be both technically and legally adequate. Secondly- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister round off his answer. He has already referred to the tabling of a paper. Mr WEST —I have instructed the Department to review, very likely through the engagement of an independent outside consultancy, the tendering process and the contract administrative processes of the Department and, finally, to advise me upon the feasibility of setting up a legal branch within the Department of Housing and Construction. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister has about eight sheets of paper there. Does he intend to read them all? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I think the Minister has indicated that he has completed his answer. Mr BEALE —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the community employment program, in its first year report, stated that its 'fundamental objective is to assist the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed in obtaining permanent employment in the general labour market' and indicated a total commitment of $730m-most of it Federal funds-creating 52,000 jobs, often for radical Left groups? Mr Young —If you have a million dollars everyone is on the Left. Mr BEALE —I am from the private sector; I do not mind a bit of competition. Is the Minister further aware that no system has yet been established to measure how many people from those make-believe jobs have now been employed in the general labour market? Will the Minister say whether this extraordinary situation arises because of his Department's inefficiency or is it a deliberate attempt to inflate artificially the jobs-created numbers? Will the Minister undertake to remedy this situation immediately so that he can assure us that he is not wasting three-quarters of a billion dollars of taxpayers' money? Mr WILLIS —The honourable member's disparaging remarks about the community employment program seem to indicate a view on his part that job creation schemes are not worth spending money on. In that case he might ask why the previous Government introduced the wage pause program as a job creation scheme, on which the CEP is an improvement but, nevertheless, of the same ilk, that is, a government job creation scheme. The purpose of the job creation scheme we are operating as the CEP is designed most definitely to provide opportunities to people who would not have job opportunities from normal economic recovery. They are the most disadvantaged people in the work force. This applies particularly to the long term unemployed. The simple facts of life, which the honourable member should understand, are that these people will not be able to get jobs quickly because they are disadvantaged in the sense of their low self-esteem and their confidence in getting a job. Also, employers tend to view a person who has been unemployed for a long time as not such a good employment prospect. The CEP gives these people a chance to show that they can hold down a job, that they can get a good reference, and therefore can go to an employer with much better employment prospects than would otherwise have been the case. Preliminary research that has been carried out shows that under the wage pause program about half of the participants went on to get permanent full time jobs, and that is encouraging. We are having further work done on that through the Bureau of Labour Market Research. Work is also being done on the community employment program. It is a total and absolute nonsense to say, as I thought I heard the honourable member say, that all this money has been spent on left wing groups. I do not know where he got that delusion from. It is overwhelmingly the case, of course, that the funds have been spent through State governments and local government, and some funds have been spent through the Federal Government. About 20 per cent of the funds have been spent through community groups, which comprise all sorts of groups, some of which might be seen by the honourable member as being a little on the left of centre. However, those groups essentially cover the spectrum which represents the community. There certainly cannot be said to be any political bias to the Left in terms of the funding of sponsors for CEP undertakings-far from it. I also inform the honourable member that the latest figures available to me show that so far under the CEP we have created 67,000 jobs. Of course, many of those have gone through to completion. The number of persons placed has been 56,000. So far $709m in CEP funds has been committed. Those expenditures and commitments are certainly giving a chance to people who would not otherwise have a chance of getting a job. It is a very worth while program and one which, rather than disparaging, the honourable member for Deakin would do well to support. Mr DUBOIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to media reports on the New South Wales Government's decision to lower the driving age? How does this relate to the Federal Government's graduated licensing concept proposed to the States last year? What has been the response in other States? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his very important question. The death of young people on our roads is an extremely serious social issue. When we recognise that each year some 1,000 young Australians between the ages of 17 and 25 years are killed and 11,000 are seriously injured and, when we look at those figures in the context of the proportion that young people comprise of the total population, we find that whilst males between 17 and 25 years of age represent about 8 per cent of the population, they constitute 30 per cent of road deaths. If we look further at the presence of alcohol in the bodies of those young people who died, we find that, for all drivers involved in fatal crashes with a positive blood alcohol concentration, 49 per cent-almost 50 per cent-were young people, males between 17 and 25 years of age. This Government and, increasingly, State governments have refused to stand by and not take direct and positive action to overcome that problem. Each day road deaths in this country cost more than $8m. Every two and a half hours on average somebody is killed on our roads and something like 30,000 people are injured a year. The complacency of our general population about that is something which I know most honourable members in this chamber cannot understand. All governments are now trying to change that complacency. I am most heartened by the decision of the New South Wales Government yesterday. I have been advocating, on behalf of our Government, for some time that we ought to be moving towards the introduction of a staged learner driving process for young people. The age at which a person begins to drive is not nearly as important as the quality and the length of the learning experience. The New South Wales decision to reduce the age at which a person can begin to learn to drive from 17 years to 16 years is a very important and a very welcome step. That first step in a way implements the graduated driver licensing concept that this Government has been promoting. It extends the length of the learning period. The change the New South Wales Government has made to cease withdrawing licences and penalising people with points on their licences for relatively minor offences removes the punitive approach to young people. Rather, it gives them the opportunity to learn to drive at an earlier age and not being heavy-handed with the penalties encourages them to drive in a better fashion. At the same time, the implementation of 0.02 blood alcohol limit for all young drivers and P-plate holders again is a step in the right direction. It is effectively a zero blood alcohol content. This separates the learning to drink and the learning to drive processes, that fatal combination in young people, whose bodies are not seasoned to the intake of alcohol, at the same time as beginning to learn to drive. It breaks that link, and that again is a very welcome step forward for New South Wales and all of Australia. If we look around Australia now we find that the South Australian Government is in the process of putting together a pilot program for graduated driver licensing, New South Wales has lowered its driving age and all States now have a zero BAC for young drivers. Both the Tasmanian and Victorian governments are looking critically at the possibility of similar programs to those in South Australia and New South Wales. In conclusion, I am pleased that the leadership that this Government has been able to give in this area has acted as a catalyst for the State governments around Australia. That improvement in attitude of State governments, with a much greater effort being directed to saving lives and reducing casualities on roads, has also been very ably and appreciably assisted by the media. It is a public education process. In those States and regions where the media have played a more direct and effective role, the reduction in casualties has been greater. We welcome their participation and I hope that, as governments collectively, we can continue on this path. Dr WATSON —Is the Special Minister of State aware that the Committee for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament is advertising the Brisbane telephone number 225 2664 as its contact? This telephone is answered in Senator Georges's office. Is the Minister aware whether this telephone connection is paid for by the Australian taxpayer? Is it government policy to use taxpayers' funds to promote the views of private organisations? If so, how broadly applicable is that policy? If it is not government policy, will the Minister direct his Labor socialist colleagues to desist from using taxpayers' funds for such purposes? Mr YOUNG —I do not think anyone in this House would expect me to take responsibility for all the work that is done over the phones by the 148 members in this House and all the organisations they may represent. I noticed in an Adelaide newspaper the other day that a telephone number is listed if one wants to contact a certain Liberal member of the upper House in South Australia. One can contact that member through the Federal member's office in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Obviously those members have got their heads together to decide the way in which they will service the community. I think there is very much a responsibility on members as to the way in which they utilise their office and service their community. As honourable members know, organisations and individuals expect a great deal of members. Members might be associated with certain causes or pressure groups, as all honourable members opposite are on occasions. This applies to those in cockeys' corner. When the cow cockeys come to town they all get together. I am pretty sure that if one were in Cunnamulla one could use the honourable member's phone if one wanted to get hold of the Minister for Primary Industry. Those sorts of things do occur. I am conversant with them but I think it is the responsibility of all members to see that they are responsible in the utilisation of the services which are given to them by the government of the day to carry out their representation of the people in the community. Mr MARTIN —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the matter I raised during the adjournment debate last Thursday. Can the Minister comment on the operations of the Illawarra Retirement Trust in respect of, firstly, the campaign against tenants of the villages at Woonona and Narooma to collect maintenance fees retrospectively, thus causing great personal suffering and financial hardship; and, secondly, the practice of that organisation in charging all residents of the Illawarra Retirement Trust the total amount of the supplementary pensioner allowance as part of the residents' fees, even though all residents do not receive the allowance? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I did hear something of his speech the other night. I was rather surprised to see that that well-known newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury, had maligned the honourable member for raising some questions within this House about the administration of the Illawarra Retirement Trust. I can say to the House that the Department of Community Services is aware of the current situation regarding the fees charged to the hostel residents at Daisy Street and the Woonona village lodges in that area. The Department has some control over the level of fees charged under the terms and conditions outlined in the personal care and hostel care subsidies agreement, which all organisations in receipt of these subsidies are required to sign. I think the essence of the disagreement which was referred to by the honourable member the other night and which is referred to in his question today really arises from two classes of residents present within that hostel. There is an earlier group of residents who have been in the hostel for a long time and who were, at one stage, given an oral guarantee that their rents would not be raised in real terms. More recently some practices have been adopted in relation to newer residents which effectively mean that the fees charged for more recent residents and, ultimately, for all residents are related to 85 per cent of the current pension and to the payment of supplementary allowances. I have to say to the honourable member that, having looked at the situation, the Department of Social Security sees no particular grounds for intervening as the current level of rents being charged are not out of line with the general practice which, with respect to hostel accommodation, is increasingly to link fees very much to the question of pensions. But I can understand his concern that there are people who are not receiving supplementary allowances and whose incomes are not related to that formula, who have been there for a long time and who are paying very much higher rents than they would normally be expected to pay. It is not an area in which the Government can intervene, nor do I think the honourable member ought to be maligned for raising what I think is a very responsible concern and one that my Department will continue to monitor. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister: Where a member of the Australian judiciary, sitting as a Federal royal commissioner, has been granted the right to sit and take evidence in the country of a friendly government, does he believe it proper and appropriate for that member of the judiciary to make comment before he hands down his report prior to and subsequent to his taking that evidence? In particular, does he endorse the remarks of Mr Justice McClelland about the British Prime Minister and the policies of the British Government? Mr HAWKE —I doubt whether anyone in my Party or outside it would ever pretend to adopt the very onerous role of being the keeper of our friend, now Mr Justice McClelland. He is a free spirit. He is one who has been endowed with a very considerable degree of eloquence which, I believe, has given great joy and comfort to many people over many years. I believe he has conducted himself, in respect of the judicial obligations he has, with distinction. If he has felt, in the atmosphere he finds himself in over there, that there is a need to make certain other observations beyond that role, I think those of us who know him well will understand that. I do not believe anything he has said causes any discomfort to the Government or, importantly, to the people of Australia. Finally I say that those on the other side who may have been the recipients of some of his observations I think have sufficient capacity to understand and, indeed, perhaps even appreciate them. Mrs KELLY —Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to an article today in the Canberra Times in which one of my constituents reported purchasing a children's novelty Easter egg pack which was found to contain an artificial miniature cigarette packet that could be worn as a pendant? Can he inform the House about progress towards a national consumer product safety commission? Would such an article as this Easter egg pack come under the jurisdiction of such a commission? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for the question. I am advised that the product has the head of a chicken or a rabbit and contains small chocolate Easter eggs which are visible, but hidden below is a yellow plastic miniature cigarette packet. There is legitimate concern from the point of view of consumers that some products are hazardous. This is being investigated and I am advised that the artificial article in the Easter egg pack is not a hazardous product, but there is a moral question involved, which is the promotion of cigarettes for children. I pay tribute to the company concerned, Sweetoys, which voluntarily withdrew the product as soon as it was made aware of its contents. On the more important question of national jurisdiction in respect of product safety, yes, it is important that we do have a national standard. At present there are a number of standards which relate to what are called hazardous products. In some areas States are banning the products and in other areas they are not. There is great concern in consumer associations that there ought to be some uniformity. I am very anxious to achieve that; and, on that basis, we are seeking discussion as to what might be a uniform standard. The Office of Consumer Affairs is in the process of providing options which would enable a Federal government to play a role in product safety. I hope that this will be completed this year. In other words, what we want to do is to ban products that are unsafe, but we need to have some minimum standard. Responsibility at present is a bit diverse. I look forward to the co-operation of the respective State Ministers so that we can get some uniformity in establishing a national consumer product safety commission. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —I present the following paper: Supply of materials for pavements at the new Brisbane International Airport-review of actions by the Department of Housing and Construction in the matter of the supply of crushed rock by Blue Rock Quarries. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move that this House-- Mr SPEAKER —The Minister is now seeking leave to move a motion. Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —Leave is refused. We know nothing about this. We have received no notice of it. We were told that there were no papers to be presented. The Acting 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton and Mr Drummond. 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 Fife and Mr Shipton. 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 Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many person willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the ''user pays'' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial asistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 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 Act into the traditional and Christian forms of life. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test will mean the sale of homes, of cars, and treasured possessions which have been accumulated over many years of hard work and saving; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of old people is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete opposition to the following matters: Any alteration to the Australian Flag Removal of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen when taking the oath of Australian Citizenship Any move to change Australia to a republic Removal of the Crown from Australian Passports Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to cease any moves to bring about the above mentioned matters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure 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 Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore 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 Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people in the Electorate of Farrer 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 Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: the Kaleen and Giralang, and other concerned retail traders, and citizens (electors of the Divisions of Fraser and Canberra) strongly object to the inclusion of the retail component (a shopping centre of some 2,500 sq. metres) in the Development Plan for Sections 27, 28 Kaleen, on the basis that there is not, and never will be, sufficient populace in the area to justify such a development. Your petitioners do therefore pray that this retail component is abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: 1. Wilton and surrounding districts are unsuitable sites for any major airport due to environmental, conservation and weather factors. 2. Many hundreds of people will be dislocated and many thousands more will be disturbed by the siting of an airport at Wilton and surrounding districts. 3. N.S.W. taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost, upgrading and expansion of Kingsford-Smith will satisfy the needs of N.S.W. air travellers in the foreseeable future. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable House will not approve an airport at Wilton and surrounding districts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens of N.S.W., electors of the Division of Macarthur, respectfully shows that we, the undersigned, view the proposed siting of the second Sydney International Airport at Wilton with great alarm. Your petitioners therefore pray that Wilton not be considered as a site for Sydney's second International Airport. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Waikerie and surrounds in the State of South Australia showeth: 1. Your petitioners are burdened in manner as follows. 2. Your petitioners reside in that region of the State of South Australia commonly known as the Riverland, the several towns therein having a common economic interest largely dependent upon the vine, citrus and fruitgrowing industry. 3. Your petitioners are subject to a discretion in that they are required to pay trunk line rates when they telephone the major towns in the Riverland region situated as they are in the central and eastern areas. 4. Your petitioners are further burdened in that the town of Berri has lately been established as the centre for a number of Federal and State Government offices to service the whole Riverland region. Certain government offices formerly situated at Waikerie have been closed and others have had their services reduced, resulting in aggravation of the above imposition. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will prevail upon Telecom to fix uniform telephone charge rates throughout the whole of the Riverland region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that this would be an appropriate time for the Minister for Housing and Construction to seek leave to move a motion regarding the paper he presented earlier. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the supply of materials for pavements at the new Brisbane International Airport. (2) Review of actions by the Department of Housing and Construction in the matter of supply of crushed rock by Blue Rock Quarries. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's deception of the Australian dairy industry and the people of Victoria. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(2.52) —In proposing this matter of public importance let me say that the Hawke Labor Government will come to regret having treated the Australian dairy farmers in such a shabby fashion. It says a lot about the deceitful way in which the Government is prepared to treat the problems of people. The people of Victoria and the Australian dairy industry have been subjected to one of the most cynical, despicable, deceitful ploys that I can ever recall. The sudden reversal of the Cain Labor Government's opposition to the national self-help dairy marketing plan two days before polling day in Victoria has proved to be no more than a giant political stunt aimed at rescuing Labor in Victoria from imminent electoral defeat. The apparent breakthrough in the dairy plan talks and the promise of a milk inquiry successfully defused industry anger, eased tensions in Victoria, and resulted in the lifting of milk blockades on election eve. People were led to believe that the vital initiatives needed to lift the Victorian dairy industry out of its crisis were in sight. Premier Cain acted out his part in the political conspiracy, taking the Damascus road to Canberra as the saviour of the Victorian farmers. The Primary Industry Minister (Mr Kerin) acted out his role as the passive but reluctant yielder. This stunt was convincing enough at the time for the Premier of Victoria to grab a few hundred votes-the few hundred votes he needed in a handful of lower House seats for him to cling to power. I draw the attention of honourable members to headlines in the Press: Cain wins new dairy deal. Headlines such as these were seen in the media just a day or two before polling day. Other headlines read: Cain saves the dairying industry. Milk row over, say rebels. What cheap propaganda. What low-down cunning. Just how low can the Australian Labor Party get in trying to grab a few votes to deceive the Australian farmers, to treat them as hill-billies, hicks, idiots and fools. Friday's announcement that the national dairy plan has now been tossed aside means that Labor simply cannot be trusted. The Hawke and Cain Labor governments were co-conspirators in an exercise of political deceit. As the Minister is on this side of the House I will hand those newspaper articles to him. Let us see how his conscience likes that. What I cannot understand is why the Minister for Primary Industry was a willing participant in this con trick. It seems out of character for the Minister. He has lowered himself in dignity and I am sure he has destroyed a lot of the respect he had gathered over the years in his service in one field or another. The Minister watched for two years as the dairy industry negotiated its own self-help marketing plan, first between industry bodies and then between State governments. Now he claims that the agreement reached between the States two days before the Victorian election suddenly made the plan internally inconsistent-and they are his words. Apparently the Minister did not notice that the very minor modifications from that meeting created a major problem. It did not dawn on the Minister until after the Victorian election was over, or if it did he chose not to come clean. The industry was left with an impression that this long-awaited breakthrough had a chance of succeeding. Although a sufficiently bright picture was painted for the milk blockades to be lifted, there was still good reason for a degree of scepticism within the industry. The obstructionist attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry was of on-going concern to the various farmer organisations. Mr Braithwaite —Just as it was with sugar. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. The honourable member has hit the cube on the head. Earlier in the year the Minister claimed that the proposal for milk entitlements was dead. When the anxiety of some farmers reached the point of forcing them into militant action, he turned around and made totally false accusations that the milk blockades had been set up by the Liberal and National parties. What a load of rubbish. The Liberal and National parties in Victoria had nothing whatsoever to do with the action that was being taken by those people who were concerned enough to try to give physical expression to their depths of anxiety and concern, living as they are in almost abject poverty. Mr Cunningham —Oh! Mr HUNT —The honourable member for McMillan laughs. He does not understand; he does not want to understand, and that is the whole trouble with the Labor Government. Labor members laugh at the problems of farmers whenever they get an opportunity; they are always laughing at the problems of the farming community. On 21 February the Minister announced a meeting of officials of three Labor States on the milk issue, but he later agreed reluctantly that all States should attend. Shortly after, he announced that they would not be allowed to discuss the national marketing plan. Later he conceded that the plan should be discussed. In view of the Minister's record of antagonism towards the industry's plan, I sought clarification from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the eve of the Victorian election that the unanimous support of the industry and all States would be honoured by the Commonwealth Government. The telex read: Strongly urge immediate public statement from you endorsing unanimous decision of all States to support key elements of Australian Dairy Industry Conference marketing plan. Electors of Victoria must be left in no doubt over Commonwealth support for this plan. The exhaustive negotiations by industry organisations and State governments must be endorsed by your Government. There was no attempt by either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Primary Industry to issue any public statement clarifying the Government's position on such an important matter, beyond a statement that the agreed plan would be taken to Cabinet. The people of Victoria were deceived by a shoddy, shabby trick. The Hawke and Cain Labor governments engaged in a deliberate exercise to deceive the Victorian people, and the Cain Labor Government has been returned to office on false premises. The imposition of the new marketing rules announced on Friday will only plunge the industry deeper into crisis. Well over half the farmers could go to the wall; 20,000 jobs will be lost. Who could trust Labor after this stunt? There is general agreement that production of 5.9 billion litres of milk in 1983-84 and 1984-85 is too high, against the background of world oversupply. The Australian Dairy Industry Conference's modified plan sought a lowering of this figure to 5.3 billion litres, an initial step to reduce production. But the new plan will induce a savage cutback to around 4.6 billion litres. It has attracted industry condemnation. United Dairy Farmers of Victoria President, Mr Bill Pyle, said it was an overreaction to surplus production and would lead to a milk war and produce a shortage of milk by 1988. The ADIC Chairman, Mr John Bennett, has described the plan as 'insidious', predicting that it would cost the industry between $50m and $150m a year. Every State Minister within the Commonwealth has condemned the action taken by the Hawke Labor Government. That includes Ministers in Labor governments as well. The plan fails to recognise that there are world market opportunities that should not be given away to the European Economic Community or to New Zealand. Under the ADIC plan, Australia would have had a buffer of some one billion litres a year for the export market. The Minister's plan will cut dairy exports to insignificance. His plan fails to take account of the efforts by the EEC to cut its overproduction. In the three years to 1979-80, the EEC was producing three times its domestic requirements of whole milk powder, 63 per cent more than its demand for concentrated milk, and was also producing surpluses of butter, skim milk powder and cheese. I have been personally assured by the French Minister for Agriculture, Mr Rocard-I am sure the Minister is aware of this-that the dairy surpluses are being reduced. As the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, Mr Malcolm Vawser, made clear at the recent National Agricultural Outlook Conference: Given the economics of our production, Australia will be in a position to compete effectively in the export market when the EEC and USA structural surplus problems are eventually rationalised. By decimating our export sector, the Minister is also abandoning hope that the ailing International Dairy Agreement can be renegotiated. Australian dairy exports earned $350m in the last financial year. This vital export income will be slashed if the Minister's plan remains unaltered. The Australian dairy problem is not a result of the domestic policies of the Commonwealth Government or the 1977 unproclaimed legislation. Contrary to the general perception, the Australian industry is relatively efficient. It has undergone enormous adjustment over the past two decades with dairy farms having reduced in number from 49,000 20 years ago to about 19,700 today. The industry has improved its productivity and efficiency. In spite of this reconstruction the industry now faces its toughest challenge for reasons beyond its control. The Government has set the stage for a milk marketing war. Worse still, in rejecting the national dairy marketing plan which is supported not only by the farmers but also by all States the Hawke Labor Government has declared war on the dairy farmers and in so doing on the farming community generally. The Minister makes no mention of our reduced export capacity, the social and economic upheaval facing dairy families or the prospect of a milk shortage and artificially high prices a few years down the track. Neither the dairy sector nor Australian consumers will be fooled by such a tactic. This is not a plan for free enterprise; it is a plan for the destruction of the export capacity of a vital national industry at a time when Australia should be endeavouring to increase its export earnings. This cheap political trick and the prospect of a milk price war has the potential benefit of temporarily reducing inflation at the cost of farmers. Already this tactic has been used by not increasing the price of manufactured milk products. Manufactured milk product prices remained static from 1 December 1982 until this year, but over that period government services, charges, wages and other costs have risen significantly. The excuse used by the Government, that a price rise would encourage overproduction, was answered by the industry's national plan incorporating entitlements which would reflect the true value of marginal production. The Government has chosen another more vicious course. It has embarked on a course which will slash farm returns and force thousands of farmers and their families out of the industry. Let no one claim that milk and dairy product prices are too high in Australia. Australia's prices for butter and cheese, for example, are lower than those of any of the major producers such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Sweden. In blocking price increases for more than two years the Government has ratted on the dairy farmers of this country. It would never have dared to impose such restrictions on the members of trade unions. Labor still clings to its centralised wage fixation system with full indexation-a most highly protected system for the wage earners of this country. Yet it is prepared to impose another set of circumstances upon the dairy farmers of Australia. Under the new marketing plan there is no provision for entitlements. Farmer will be pitted against farmer in a savage battle to remain in production. The underwriting of exports will put the workforce of Australia into free competition as well. The underwriting of exports will fall from 95 per cent to 90 per cent using a three year average and export pooling will not apply after 30 June this year. The levy on all milk is to be set at a maximum of 2c a litre. Levies on butter, et cetera, will be phased out within a maximum of six years. The dairy industry's own self-help plan was an attempt-not by the Government, but by the industry-to support its own manufacturing milk prices and to achieve a more gradual rationalisation over a longer period. The Cain Labor Government, with the co-operation of the Hawke Labor Government, has regained power on false pretences. If either the Federal Government or the Victorian Labor Government thinks that primary producers at large will simply forget this trick, they are deceiving themselves. The Minister can rest assured that farmers have long memories and they will not forget his role in this matter. This action by the Minister will reinforce that suspicion for years to come. The Minister had earned some respect amongst farming communities. He has done it in properly on this dairying issue. It is a cheap, political, low-down, cunning trick against the dairy farmers of Australia and therefore against the farming community generally. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.07) —The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) deserves 10 out of 10 for acting. Even the dries of the Liberal Party of Australia, including the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), are not completely dry-eyed after that exposition. I am not going to comment particularly on headlines because the results of decisions taken by Governments are far more serious than some newspapers seek to interpret. I am disappointed in the Opposition for raising a matter of public importance that focuses on one State. The big problem for the Australian Government-the national Government-is to try to get in place a national dairy industry policy. The problem that has bothered sequential Australian parliaments and governments-at least back to 1934 when I think the first meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council was held, where I think the second item on the agenda was the failure of the States to agree on dairying-has always been that we have had six separate dairy industries and that each State has acted to preserve its own dairy industry. I freely acknowledge that each dairying State has particular problems to service its own metropolitan markets year round with milk, but at no time due to the powerful and vested interests that have grown up in each State, have the States ever been prepared to look at this industry nationally. I am not going to come in here and say that one State has been particularly persecuted or that one State has made particular gains. I resent the Opposition's attack in terms of divisiveness. Dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland refer to Victorians as Mexicans. That is not a very constructive way to go about things. Today we have the Opposition perpetuating the reverse sort of division. The reality is that Victoria is the largest dairying State. It now produces nearly 60 per cent of the milk in Australia. When the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was the Minister for Primary Industry in 1977 he tried to get some sort of agreement between the States then. Again, it was Victoria that held out. It has been the Victorian Government which has held out throughout the negotiations and discussions since November 1983 when the most recent final report by the Industries Assistance Commission brought down its recommendations. One of the very big problems that the Australian dairy industry faces overall is the fact that the Victorian Liberal Party, when in government in that State, for so long constantly encouraged dairy production whatever the market reality was. The sad thing today is that Victoria and, to a lesser extent, Tasmania now produce over 90 per cent of the exports in this country. That is why the pressure is falling most heavily on Victoria. It will be so and would have been so if no action had been taken. It would have been so if the Government had moved for total deregulation. Victoria would have borne the pressure of adjustment if the Australian Dairy Industry Conference scheme had been put into place. It is nothing new for dairy farmers to be dissatisfied, because there are fundamental problems with dairy industries in the developed countries throughout the world. When I was in the United Kingdom recently I ascertained that the dairy farmers in that country were virtually stoning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because the European Economic Community tried to introduce some sort of quota system. In the United States of America, which I also visited recently, the same sort of process is under way. There is too much milk and too many dairy products are stockpiled. There is a big problem in this regard throughout the world. Australia does not have the problem those countries have because those countries have subsidised their industries to the hilt and have further engaged in subsidies to get rid of the surpluses. I am afraid that as a reality we have to take into account the fact that we do not have the treasuries of North America and the EC. I put it to the House that sometimes tough decisions have to be taken. What the Opposition will concentrate on, of course, is opposition to the Government's tough decision. It will not concentrate on the problems of the dairy industry or their solution. There is no sense in the Opposition's taking refuge in the Cain-ADIC scheme, if I can so describe it, because basically it was not a feasible scheme, and I will get to that in a moment. The Cabinet takes decisions. There is no sense in making allegations about lack of consultation. That is really a bit rich when the Australian Agricultural Council met five times, the Cabinet met five times, and either I or my Department had hundreds of meetings with the industry. At those five Agricultural Council meetings the Victorian Government opposed entitlements tooth and nail-if I had time I would read out the minutes from the various meetings-and then suddenly it believes it can turn around on this matter. It did get some agreement, and again if I had time I would get on to the area of agreement and the reason why the Cabinet rejected the proposition as unworkable and infeasible. Surely by this time the Opposition, with all the experience it has had in government, might have come up with some substantive, constructive policies on this industry. The Liberal Party does not take primary industry or rural policy seriously. I guess basically it has a philosophy, a reaction. I heard a commentator say the other day that the Liberal Party had not changed its philosophies since 1908. The Liberal Party is not serious about rural policy in this House, but it certainly is in the Victorian and Tasmanian parliaments. The National Party, of course, is a user party. I guess I could recite the policy on dairying that the coalition agreed to at the time of the last election. God knows when the Liberal Party will take some interest in rural policy. We might get a bit more sense from the coalition then. This is the policy from the rural specialists: the Liberal/National parties are determined to improve the efficiency and economic viability of the Australian dairy industry. This will be achieved by improving industry accountability and implementing realistic policies on domestic pricing, imports, exports, underwriting and stabilisation. Marketing research and product promotion will be increased. That is lovely motherhood stuff, but it does not really bear down on the problems of the amount of production. It does not really bear down on the inherent problems in the structure of the dairy industry. Let us get down to the fine detail: domestic pricing will be freed up to attract sufficient milk production to meet Australian domestic requirements on a year-round basis; In the deepest of the deep droughts in this country there has never been any problem, any worry, about the dairy industry's capacity to supply the market. The policy continues: we will continue the Joint Industry Consultation Group discussions with New Zealand. That is another nice motherhood one. God knows what the coalition means when it says: the Liberal/National parties believe the Australian dairy industry should make the best use of economic production and minimum transport costs. This is the really confusing bit: Underwriting will be pursued to reflect established production patterns and market prices. Underwriting is not pursued to reflect that; underwriting is pursued to take account of a sudden drop in the international price. The crusader who is now the spokesman for the Opposition on rural matters, the honourable member for Gwydir, has had one policy statement and he believes that I should have convened a meeting. I did, so I suppose his policy has been implemented. Let us make it clear: The Government's policy is for a long term viable Australian dairy industry. I and many of my colleagues were members of this Parliament during the mid 1970s and we, in this Government, do not want to see the pain of that time repeated. There is no sense in pointing to dairy decline in terms of simple numbers. The number of dairy farmers has dropped from something like 47,000 in 1969 to something like 18,600 today. It is fewer than 20,000, but we will not argue about the figures. The big problem with dairying world wide is productivity and productivity increase. The increase in dairy production in this country from 5.181 billion litres in 1980-81 to something in excess of 6 billion litres now has been basically due to on-farm productivity increase and the policies of sequential Victorian Liberal governments. International markets are corrupted. If the honourable member for Gwydir, the primary industry spokesman for the Opposition parties, really believes that the EEC is fair dinkum about cutting down production and if he really believes Michel Rocard's statement on this matter I think he really has another think coming. The EEC put forward some quota cuts in production across the board in its last Budget. Only the United Kingdom has really set out to implement them and this has caused all sorts of problems for the British Government. Hardly anything has taken place in the other areas. There was a cut in price support of 3.6 per cent in the recent EEC Budget. However, by the time one puts that into the national currencies of EEC members, that represented an increase of about 1.4 per cent. When I was recently in the United States of America I was told by scientists, agricultural policy people and economists that in the dairy industry pipeline is a potential productivity increase per cow of something like 20 to 30 per cent due to bio-technological techniques. We have the fundamental problem that the dairy industry can continue to produce. People are already mixing up their arguments. I heard the argument being put most eloquently but confusedly by the President of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria that on the one hand we were not going to have enough product to meet our quota export markets and that on the other hand we were not going to have enough product to supply our local consumption. That has never been the problem. The dairy plan that we put before the industry guarantees that if the international price picks up at all dairy farmers will be well placed to meet it. What the dairy industry is doing in terms of its immediate reaction to the plan is to look at the existing plan. It is not comparing like with like. We have to adjust to some market reality. We are an open economy. If we did not do that in other areas we would have many more blacksmiths than people who at present make computer chips. There has to be adjustment in our sort of economy. We do not want a system which will give one farmer 12c to 13c a litre for milk which, due to the export market, is going into product valued at 5c a litre while another farmer, producing an identical product, is receiving 28c to 30c a litre for milk going into product being sold to the Australian public for 66c to 71c a litre. That is the divisive system we have at present. This is the system that the coalition brought in in 1977-78. Admittedly, it did not foresee the results. But this is the system in respect of which we have to take some sort of national approach. There is not any debate about the need for or the inevitability of adjustment in this industry. There is debate about how we can put in place measures that will facilitate sensible adjustment. Time does not allow me to go into all the complications of the present system, except to say that if we are to have some sort of national system, if we are to have some system which gives some justice to Australian dairy farmers in the longer haul so that we do not have to go through a painful shakeout every seven, eight or 10 years, whatever it is, we have to put in place arrangements which are simple, efficient, equitable and stable. The present system is inherently complex. I have yet to meet many rank and file farmers, let alone State Ministers for agriculture, who understand the system. With respect to manufactured products, the protesters ignore one very fundamental point; that is, that all we are talking about in terms of marketing arrangements are manufactured products, five prescribed products as there have been, and products for export. The States still have total control over their own market milk arrangements and their regulations and, of course, the market controls all those products outside of prescribed products. We have to understand how bad the present system is. It is inefficient because it has induced overproduction. The poor old farmer gets only a chit, a slip of paper, with his payment for 12c or 13c a litre, not knowing that the last litre going into the last kilogram of cheese is worth only 5c. The manufacturer has no incentive to go out and get the better market, because it is all pooled and equalised through a very complicated system. There is no inherent incentive in the whole system for farmers to get any market signal. They have no capacity to get a market signal, nor does the manufacturer have to meet the market in any way, shape or form. That is why we have four milk trucks chasing up and down a road. Factories compete with each other for milk because they do not share the result of the sale or their products. The present arrangements are inefficient. They can produce bad decisions on stockholding, marketing and the production mix. That is the effect of the domestic value for levy purposes mechanism, of allowances and of export pooling. They reduce the incentive to develop better export markets, discourage consumption and benefit imports. Whether we like it or not, we are one of the most open markets for cheese in the world because we have a highly priced- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(3.22) —In supporting the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), I begin by making a couple of observations about what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has just said. He started by making a lot of noise about State divisions, but he completely ignored the fact that the States agreed on the eve of the Victorian election, he just wiped that. He talked about taking tough decisions, but it is one thing to take a tough decision and it is another to take the right decision. He went on about the differences in price being received by some farmers. One almost gets the impression that he would like all dairy farmers to be getting 5c a litre for their milk. The Minister in his Press statement of Friday of last week talked about the new dairy plan that he is trying to bring in. He said, in part: This is consistent with the position adopted by the Government in relation to other industries . . . and is consistent with the approach adopted by the National Farmers Federation in its discussions with government. Frankly, I think that is a load of rubbish. Is it consistent to talk about the effects of the protection that has been given to secondary industry at a level of 25 per cent when the level of protection to primary industry is about 10 per cent? He says that it is consistent with the National Farmers Federation approach. Has the Minister forgotten about the submission the National Farmers Federation made to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) earlier this month on farm costs? Is he ignoring the points that were brought out in that submission? The costs imposed by the protection of secondary industry alone are estimated to be burdening every farmer with an annual charge of about $16,000 which, I might add, is probably more than twice the average income of most farmers. Does the Minister ignore the effect on farm costs of the rigid wage fixing? He is talking a lot about market reality. Market reality and rigid wage fixing are two diametrically opposed things. Apparently it is all right to talk about market reality for farmers but when he talks about the natural constituents of the Labor Party it is a different matter; it is one thing for farmers and another for them. Until this Government is prepared to reduce its assistance to secondary industry to a level similar to that of other industries, until it frees up the wage fixing system, until it reduces the burden of tariffs costing every farmer $16,000 and until it reduces the level of government charges on primary industry and all government on-costs for farmers, how can the Minister, in all seriousness, suggest that his approach is consistent with the approach of the National Farmers Federation? It is a load of garbage. I suggest that this Minister cannot ignore the submission on farm costs. This dairy plan is certainly not consistent with that approach. The other side of the problems that are being faced by the dairy farmers includes the depressed world market and, as the Minister touched on, export prices. But the Minister also should remember that this is an industry earning export income of over $350m a year. The problem is that the European Economic Community has heavily subsidised dumping in all our export markets. Are we supposed to walk away from this? We can look at the local market situation. Again the Minister is very quick to run away from that. We can look at what happened in Victoria. The price of market milk was frozen for two years. It was altered only when the Cain Government suddenly found itself on the eve of an election and thought that maybe it ought to give a miserable increase of 2.2c. Imagine this Government turning to the unions and saying something similar. I say to the Minister that until this Government reduces the assistance to secondary industry, frees up the wage fixing system, reduces the effects of tariffs on other industries and shows that the world market is indeed a free market-free of subsidised exports-he has no right to throw the dairy farmers to the wolves. In other words, until the Government takes its foot off the neck of farmers it cannot abandon this vital sector of the Australian economy. Any suggestion that the Minister's approach is consistent with that of the NFF is garbage. The Minister is expecting the industry to bear the brunt of deregulation plans. It is one thing to talk about deregulating the industry, but what about deregulating its costs? I think the two must go hand in hand. There is no way that this industry can be expected to take the brunt of deregulation without being given the chance to reduce its costs. When we look further in the Minister's Press release we find what the real reason for this Government's plan is. The Minister for Primary Industry says: The consumer and the nation's economy will benefit through lower prices . . . I think this is what the Minister is really on about. He is not the Minister for Primary Industry now; he is the Minister for the consumers. He is more interested in getting cheaper milk for the consumers than he is in giving the farmers a reasonable chance to make a living. I quickly point out: Is the price of milk expensive when one compares the price of a litre of milk with the price of a litre of soft drink? Which is cheaper, which is more nutritious and which is healthier? Milk wins every time. I suggest that this Minister is abrogating his responsibilities for primary industry. We find that there might be another reason for this plan when we look at a minute put out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, presumably for the Australian Agricultural Council meeting held on 11 February 1985. It was headed 'Future Dairy Market Arrangements'. It stated: The Commonwealth also had in mind that with the progressively closer integration with the Australia/New Zealand economies it will be necessary for the Australian industry in the longer term to compete against New Zealand imports. In other words, he wants to force Australian dairy farmers to compete with New Zealand. New Zealand, I might add, is a country which, because of the devaluation of its currency, has considerably lower costs. If the Minister was consistent-I come back to this point-would he suggest that Australian labour should compete with the cheap labour costs of South East Asia? Is he going to be consistent on this matter? Mr Cowan —He has made a deal with New Zealand. Mr HAWKER —He might have done that too. When one looks at the closer economic relations agreement one finds in the memorandum of understanding on dairy products between the Australian and New Zealand dairy industries the following: Both sides recognise the Trans-Tasman trade will be liberalised progressively under the CER in such a way as not to result in unfair competition between industries or disruption to industries of either country. That is a very important point. Is the disruption going to come from this side to our own farmers? The agreement, in part, goes on to state: Governments in Australia have the right to set domestic prices and also the right to prevent these prices falling at times of depressed international prices. In other words, CER is not something the Minister can hide behind. It spells out quite clearly that he has a responsibility to the dairy industry. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia has already highlighted, this Minister went into a most shabby deal with the Cain Labor Government in Victoria. Two days before the election all the States agreed to a marketing plan, and this Minister stood by and said: 'Okay, that is your agreement; let Cain go to the Victorian people with the headlines'-as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already pointed out-' ''Cain wins new deal''.' Some deal-a two-day wonder to try to win an election. Mr Lloyd —A con trick. Mr HAWKER —It was a complete con trick. I think a better headline might have been 'Cain conned Victoria', or was it 'Kerin cons Cain'? The Victorians were completely misled. Mr Howard —I think it was Hawke cons Kerin. Mr HAWKER —Maybe it was Hawke cons Kerin. We do not know who is conning whom, but they have a lot of fun over on that side. We know now that Cain cannot be trusted, and I do not think this Minister can be trusted either. It is a most shabby deal, and I think he should be thoroughly ashamed of what he did. In conclusion, I think this Minister has been party to a gross deception of dairy farmers and in particular the Victorian dairy farmers. He has deliberately allowed the Premier of Victoria to completely mislead the electors of Victoria. Mr Hunt —I did not think he would do it. Mr HAWKER —We never know what will happen with this lot. This Minister deliberately allowed the Premier of Victoria to mislead the Victorian voters so that he could just scrape in. Now we find that as soon as the election was over this Minister did a complete backflip and changed everything to his own little pet scheme. This will cause incredible disruption and hardship to the dairy farmers in my State and others. A lot of dairy farmers will be forced out of the industry. This Minister can sit there and say that obviously he is there only for the- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.32) —It amazes me to think that the two previous speakers for the Opposition, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), have attacked what seems to be the John Cain decision, which was reported to be an agreed decision of all Ministers. We know from what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has told us and from the record that for 14 months the States had been coming together to try to thrash out an agreement on an Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan. They could not agree. Pressure built up in Victoria to a point where blockades were put in place. Many people were showing their concern. The Premier of Victoria brought the matter to a head by bringing all Ministers together. We are told that everybody agreed. Of course when the Federal Government sat down and assessed the agreement that had been reached, we had to make our judgment as to whether that agreement would be for the good of the industry throughout Australia. The decision of the Cabinet and this Government was that it would not be for the good of the Australian dairy industry, and it moved to another direction. The speakers on the other side, a member of the Liberal Party of Australia and a member of the National Party of Australia, pointed to headlines and talked about this national agreement. I can produce headlines as well as they can. The Courier-Mail of Thursday, 21 March stated: Doumany job stirs NP row over Minister. It referred to a former Liberal Minister, Mr Sam Doumany, who was appointed to a $40,000 a year job as head of the Queensland Milk Board. The article stated in part: News of the appointment yesterday brought to a head Government backbench dissatisfaction with the performance of the Primary Industries Minister, Mr Turner. He was down here at that meeting on the Friday and this was the following week. This is what the National Party people were saying. They got together and wrote a letter to their beloved leader, Bjelke-Petersen. They attacked the Minister in Queensland and said: Anybody who criticises him just gets the sarcastic treatment. He did not tell us he was going to Canberra to agree with the Federal Government proposal that we prop up the Victorian dairy industry by paying a 2c-a-litre levy on all milk we produce. No-one was told, yet Russ Hinze's family-- we know Russ; that poor dairy farmer- now cops a $15,000-a-year bill to cover the levy. That is the sort of agreement that was reached on the Friday. Within a week the States were once again starting to tear it apart. Yet the Opposition expects this Federal Government to take it to the Cabinet. Mr Lloyd —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Does this mean that the honourable member for McMillan has no faith in the veracity of the Premier of Victoria? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The argument that has been put forward today is that this Government took an incorrect decision and that all the States had agreed. We know that for 14 months they could not agree. We know from this newspaper article that within a week in Queensland alone they were starting to take all sorts of actions and back off. Let us look at it. The Hawke Government has to take a nationally responsible position when it makes decisions. For too long agricultural industries in Australia have had foisted on them policies based on sectionalism, the sorts of policies that have put the dairy industry in the situation it is in today. Let us look at the problem. There is no way we could have a situation where in some States producers get 28c a litre and in other States they get 11c or 12c a litre. Pressure was going to build up regardless of what plan was put into operation, whether it was the ADIC plan or the Kerin plan, as I like to call this one-the one that is going to rejuvenate the industry. The industry was based on a program where the cake was put out and everybody in the industry was entitled to come forward and have a nibble at it, regardless of their cost structures, their ability to sell or their ability to be efficient. They all took out their share. In transport, for instance, they could be running five or six milk trucks up the one road. There was no problem with that. It was quite simple because the cake was there for everybody to have a bite. At the end of the day, when this policy had been developed and the cake had been eaten, the producers got what was left over, and the producers in Victoria were getting 11c or 12c a litre. How long could we expect that to continue while the producers in New South Wales and Queensland, because of their systems, were able to get 28c a litre? The problem had to come to a head and it had to be looked at on a national basis. We have to throw out that mechanism, that so-called private enterprise approach, taken by the conservatives. I do not know where they get it from, but there is nothing to do with market forces in establishing a system whereby a cake is put up for everybody to chew and the ones at the end, who get a very few crumbs, are expected to cop the result. Yet the conservatives purport to represent those people who are copping the crumbs at the bottom. The farmers are the ones who have to pick up the crumbs. Mr Kerin —They kept them in poverty for years. Mr CUNNINGHAM —For years and years they have been kept in poverty. The very structure that the conservative governments of this country have put in place has been the cause of the total breakdown in the industry. The new plan that has been put forward has taken into account that the market position has to be considered. We have not completely taken away support for the industry. It has not been deregulated, but we have certainly put it in a position where some of the milk factories around the country have to take more responsible decisions. They cannot just sell their products on the world market and expect that somebody else will pick up the bill. That is what has been happening for too long. No indication has been given to the industry as to what it will get for a product. Factory managements and factory directors have put themselves forward to get on to dairy boards, dairy corporations, dairy this and dairy that, committees here and committees there. The only reason they put themselves forward is because they know they have to be in there to get their share of the cake, and the ones who are missing out are the ones who cop the crumbs at the finish. The farmers in the community and those listening today should not fall for the trick. They have had enough of copping the crumbs, and enough of them are well aware of how the structure has put them in the position they are in today. I can guarantee that many of them will support the proposition put before the Government today. We will find that out in the very near future. There are going to be changes. They are going to have to make decisions. In the three or four minutes I have left I should like to give an example of how this will work so that those listening will have some idea of what goes on. Under the old system an average export market return could be $1,245 a tonne. An exporter would receive this return from the export pool whether he sold his product for $2,000 or for $800. A stabilisation levy of $1,170 is imposed on all domestic sales-in other words, a transfer from the consumer to the exporter. Hence, the manufacturer must receive an average export price return of $1,245 a tonne plus the amount of the levy, or a total of $2,415 a tonne, for a domestic sale-that is, a sale on the Australian market-for it to be as remunerative as the export sale. This created a situation in which people could sell on the world market, knowing full well that, regardless of what it would cost to sell, somebody else would pick up the bill. The new proposal will change that situation. The new system can be illustrated by taking the example to which I have referred and showing how the proposed new system would work in 1985-86. At present, domestic prices are supported by a system of levies on prescribed products. In the case of butter, the levy is, as I said, $1,170 a tonne and that is required to support the theoretical minimum domestic price of $2,415. The new system involves a levy on all milk and smaller levies on butter, butter oil and cheese, with the latter levies ultimately being phased out. For 1985-86 the milk levy would be about 1.5c a litre and the levy on butter would be $557 a tonne, on the assumption of an average export price for 1985-86 of $1,200 a tonne. Market support payments would be $420 per tonne to achieve the 130 per cent market support target, and a further $237 per tonne as a result of the distribution of the levies on butter and cheese. This means that an exporter receiving $1,200 from an export sale would have his return built up to $1,858. As the levy on butter is $557, the same exporter would have had to receive a return of $2,415 on the domestic market to be as well off. The figure of $2,415 is the current domestic value for levy purposes-DVLP, as we used to call it. The rates of supplementary market support and levies for butter have been calculated so as to produce this result for 1985-86. This is a quite clear indication to factories when they do their calculations for next season that, if they have markets that they can put forward under this scheme, they will be able to indicate to their farmers what price they will be able to pay. It is very important to make the point that the plan does not state that the industry must immediately cut back to 4.6 billion litres. Those decisions are still a long way down the track. If the marketing people get out and sell their product, and if the shackles are taken off, this industry can prosper. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 2, namely, the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.45) —I thank Government members for coming into the chamber to listen to an interesting debate on extradition law. The Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985, according to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), are to improve significantly our extradition laws and to facilitate the processing of extradition requests by Australia and requests made of Australia. The way in which it has been put by the Attorney-General-namely, to improve our extradition laws and to facilitate the processing of these extradition requests-is, I must say, something of an exaggeration. It is true, of course, that the Bills amend our extradition laws and it is also true that most of the proposed changes are desirable. But they are, in the view of the Opposition, a far cry from the complete overhaul of our extradition laws that is needed. The Attorney-General recently has been giving himself a pat on the back, as if the Government had thrown itself with great enthusiasm and vigour into reforming the extradition laws, and the Government had solved all the problems relating to extradition law. In reality, the Government we submit has done comparatively little in this field and what it has done has been brought about by its being galvanised into action by the embarrassment that it has suffered as a result of the Trimbole matter. Let me support that proposition by referring to the February 1983 report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the remarks made in that report on our extradition laws. I invite honourable members to see how those remarks made in the Stewart Royal Commission report measure up against the Government's feeble response which is contained in the Bills which are presently before the House. In the Stewart Royal Commission report, the Royal Commissioner made a number of points. At page 669 of the report the Royal Commissioner stated: It is obviously desirable, in the opinion of the Commission, that the Commonwealth Government should pursue a policy of replacing as soon as possible these old and uncertain treaties with modern treaties entered into by Australia itself with the relevant foreign state and being so far as practicable uniform in content as to the relevant procedures involved in the extradition process to the intent that the same may be simplified and made certain. In relation to the foreign states to which the Extradition (Foreign States) Act does not yet apply, including the foreign states mentioned earlier with which treaties are currently being negotiated, it is desirable that effective treaties be concluded as soon as possible with such foreign states and that the Act be applied to them. That is the end of the quotation from the Stewart Royal Commission report, but it will be observed from what I have read out that the view of the Royal Commission was that there was a lot of work ahead for the Government in modernising our extradition arrangements so that fugitives from this country could be returned with more speed than we have seen in the most recent case and that generally the extradition system should be improved. Madam Deputy Speaker, having in mind what Mr Justice Stewart said, you may well ask: 'How many treaties have in fact been placed? How many treaties have been negotiated? Is there now a uniform treaty; and, if so, where is it and what does it contain? Have our extradition proceedings been simplified and made more certain? How many effective treaties have been negotiated, as Mr Justice Stewart recommended in early 1983, and how many are being negotiated now?' All of these matters are left to our imagination. Insofar as the Government has an obligation-which is an obligation concerned with a great matter of public interest, particularly in the case of the Trimbole matter-one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Government has failed in its responsibility to explain to the House, the Parliament and the people just what it has done about these observations of Mr Justice Stewart in regard to improving our extradition arrangements. It is not just as if they were remarks made by the Royal Commissioner, because when he came to make his recommendations he made a number of specific recommendations which in his view should be acted upon. Recommendation 55 states: Consideration should be given to enacting legislation to permit a criminal trial to be held in the absence of an accused when he is a fugitive who cannot be found or extradited or a prisoner serving a lengthy term of imprisonment in another country. That recommendation is to be found at page 840 of the report. Recommendation 56 states: The Commonwealth Government should examine whether the 'inherited' treaties listed in Part Five (c) (xvi) of this report should be replaced by treaties entered into by Australia directly with each foreign country so that: the grounds of extradition may be made more clearly defined; procedures for extradition may be simplified; and so far as possible, procedures may be made uniform. That recommendation is also to be found at page 840 of the report. The Royal Commissioner says in recommendation 57: The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department should keep a full record of extraditions sought by or of Australia and, in consultation with the State Attorneys-General, should monitor the effectiveness of Australian law and international treaties concerning extradition and the utility of the procedures relating thereto. That recommendation is to be found at page 840 of the report. As I have already said, the Government has had this report since it came to office. The report is dated February 1983 and I presume the Government has had it since March 1983. We can well ask: What has it done about those recommendations? Has it considered any of those recommendations? What does it say about trial in the absence of the accused? I hasten to add that I am not advocating it, but what I do want to know is whether it is a recommendation made by a royal commissioner about whom the Government scarcely allows a day to go by without lauding him and his great achievements. That is a recommendation Mr Justice Stewart has made. If it is a recommendation that he has made the Parliament is entitled to know the Government's thinking in specific terms, not the wishy-washy promise to consider it which Senator Gareth Evans gave some months ago. We want to know whether the Government has rejected that recommendation. If the Government has rejected it we want to know why. We want to know what the Government says about recommendation 56. Has it done anything at all to examine whether the treaties concerned should be replaced? We would venture to suggest that it is only the Trimbole matter which has galvanised the Government into the modicum of action it has taken so far on extradition treaties. It is fair to say that the Government did nothing at all until the Trimbole matter became a matter of public interest and concern. If I may say so, with as much modesty as I can muster on this matter, it is probable that the Press statements that I and other people have issued on the subject and the Press comment on the subject drew to the attention of the public the fact that our extradition arrangements were far from adequate. The Government has taken some action. It would be churlish not to concede that the Government has at least done something. We would have thought that a second reading speech on extradition law, especially at this time when the Trimbole matter is an area of such great public interest, would have brought the House up to date on the Government's weighty and sustained deliberations on this matter, if indeed it has been considering them. One is understandably sceptical about the establishment of the task force to modernise our extradition arrangements when one realises that it was of course established, if I recall correctly, only in February this year. Again, that was after the Trimbole matter became a matter of such great public concern. Regrettably, the second reading speech is silent on all of this. Let us put the matter into perspective by saying that although the amendments proposed in the Bills before the House are, of course, for the most part desirable-one cannot argue against that-they are, in comparison with the real overhaul of our extradition treaties which is needed, comparatively minor and comparatively trifling. Just to illustrate this point, we find, for instance, that one of the amendments proposed by the Bills contains the proposition that a fugitive who waives the full extradition process can be returned voluntarily to the country that wants him back to stand trial. If the Government believes that that momentous change in the law is desirable, we have no objection to it. However, we ask the question: Of what practical use is it? It amounts to saying that if Mr Trimbole, for instance, had agreed to come back to Australia voluntarily we would have been able to receive him. One could not really say that that was all that remarkable an achievement. Nevertheless if the Government takes the view that this amendment to the law is needed we certainly will not object to it. However, we say that it falls short of the needed strengthening and modernisation of our extradition laws. The second change to which I wish to refer is that an appeal will be allowed by a country requesting a fugitive to be returned if the magistrate hearing the case rejects the extradition request. In our view, that is a reasonable amendment and the Opposition will support it. If the fugitive himself may appeal against an order extraditing him, as he may, the country requesting the fugitive to be returned should have the right to appeal against an order refusing extradition. The next amendment is of more substance. This amendment will include taxation offences, customs offences, foreign exchange control offences and other revenue matters amongst the list of extraditable offences. The Opposition will support that amendment because modern crime, especially modern organised crime, is just as likely to be involved in revenue crimes as it is to be involved in the more traditional crimes. It is appropriate that people who commit revenue crimes be just as subject to extradition arrangements as those who are involved in more traditional crimes. However, it seems to our mind-we have not had a great deal of time to examine this legislation in detail-that in amending the nature of extraditable crimes the Government is making a further substantial change which is not mentioned in the second reading speech. The amendment makes an offence an extradition crime if the maximum penalty is death or imprisonment for not less than 12 months. There may be some good reason for this being done, but the second reading speech does not make it clear why this change is being made. Unless I have overlooked something, which I may well have done, neither does the explanatory memorandum make it clear why this change is being implemented. I hasten to say that there may well be a very good reason for this change. We certainly would not stand in the Government's way in making this change if there were a good reason for it. But as things stand at the moment the Opposition is not convinced that one can say in any universal sense that crimes for which the punishment is imprisonment for less than 12 months should not be extraditable crimes. The Opposition invites the Attorney-General to explain why this change is desirable and, if there is a persuasive reason for it, we would support it actively. But at present there is no reason which has been advanced to us of which I am aware as to why offences punishable by imprisonment for less than 12 months should not be extraditable crimes. The next amendment makes it clear by codification that an extradited person may not be tried in the country that requests his extradition for offences other than those in respect of which his extradition has been granted, or at least not until he has been granted an opportunity of leaving that country, whether it be Australia or another country. The Opposition supports that change to the law on the ground that, when one comes to focus one's mind on the issue, it is on the surface at least unfair that an individual subjected to extradition on one offence should suddenly find himself faced with criminal charges relating to an entirely different offence. A further amendment changes the law to provide that a decision to refuse extradition because the offence is of a political character may be taken only by the Attorney-General and not by the magistrate. We find this amendment unacceptable, especially when we look at the reason advanced for it in the second reading speech. The reason advanced for it in that speech was that 'decisions of the courts in this area have not been very helpful'. Governments often find decisions of the courts not very helpful on particular matters, but in dealing with whether a person should not be extradited because he is to stand trial in some fascist state or some extreme socialist state or dictatorial state because the offence is of a political character-and countries of that sort have many offences of a political character, or dress them up as being legitimate offences, whereas in reality there is a political motive behind them-the Opposition's view is that in those circumstances that sort of matter should not be left solely to the discretion of the Attorney-General. It smacks of quite unnecessary restriction on the citizen's rights because the Executive is not getting the sorts of decisions from the courts that it wants. This is the worst possible reason for changing the law and the Opposition will not accept a change in the law based on that reason. Furthermore, in relation to that amendment I point out that the Bill does not provide a right of appeal to challenge the Attorney-General's determination of what is and what is not a political offence. That is an additional reason for not accepting this proposed change in the law. In substance, the Opposition believes that the matter should be left to the courts and that there should be a right of appeal, and that is substantially where the matter stands at the moment. As I have already pointed out, the Opposition has not had a great deal of time to examine this matter in detail, but we are anxious to assist the Government with its legislative program. Because we have not had a great deal of time to examine this matter, the Opposition has instituted a division of labour. My colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will be proposing an amendment to expand further on our position. He will be proposing that amendment in Committee and I adopt what he is about to say on that matter. The substance of the Opposition's argument is that we do not believe it appropriate for this sort of determination of what is and what is not a political offence to be left to the discretion or decision of the Attorney-General. I am not referring to the current Attorney-General, who I am sure would make the right decision on these matters, but one has to think of future Attorneys-General, as on occasions we think of past Attorneys-General. An Attorney-General is a politician, although he is separate from all other ministries, including the Prime Minister, and he has a different role from all other Ministers. Nevertheless, he is a political figure, an elected figure, a member of a government. He has views on the political regimes that operate in other countries, and may take a completely different view from the community in general, or from the Opposition, or from the parties involved in extradition proceedings as to what is or what is not a political offence. He might say 'We will let that person be extradited to go back to Libya, Afghanistan or the Soviet Union' or wherever it might be. It might be said 'This person is not in any danger of being subjected to trial for a political offence', whereas a magistrate, a court, or a large section of the community may well say that it is unfair to throw such a person to the wolves in the Soviet Union, Libya or wherever it might be. We believe that the proper solution is to have some independent judgment made on the matter with a right of appeal, and that means going to the courts. My colleague the honourable member for North Sydney will amplify that point and will put what the Opposition believes is a sensible amendment that we urge the Government to accept. If the Government accepts our amendment, we believe it will achieve part of what it wants; yet this will give it an opportunity to concede what we maintain is the merit of our point of view. The other amendments to the Bill will be accepted by the Opposition. It is pointless my going on simply to occupy time when I can say concisely that we do not oppose other amendments contained in the Bill, although individual honourable members may make their contributions to the debate. I conclude by returning briefly to the point I made at the outset. Despite the Government's self-congratulations on reforms in the extradition field, the Opposition believes, as was emphasised in the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, that the Government has a lot to do ahead of it to modernise our extradition laws and that it should proceed. I assure the Attorney-General and the Government that when proposals are put up for amendment of our extradition laws to modernise, strengthen and bring them into the modern world-the unfortunate modern world of crime and international crime-the Government will have the Opposition's support. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.08) —Most Aust- ralians were quite horrified when Robert Trimbole walked out of the court in Ireland, apparently a free man. This brought home to the Australian public the importance and significance of extradition treaties. I was rather surprised that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), a former Acting Attorney-General in the Liberal-National Party Government, had the hide to criticise the present Government for doing nothing about extradition. The Liberal-National Party Government ran Australia from 1975 to 1983 and did nothing about modernising the extradition treaties. The Opposition has only now jumped on the bandwagon in attacking the Labor Government-a government which today is bringing in legislation to amend those very treaties. The Liberal-National Party coalition Government and its Attorneys-General had a bad record of administering the Attorney-General's Department. Indeed, that was one of the issues that brought down that Government-namely, the neglect of the bottom of the harbour matters in the Perth Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office. It was the sheer neglect and inability of Attorneys-General in the previous coalition Government to do their job in overviewing their responsibilities that brought the present Labor Government to office. To return to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill, our nation has over a million visitors a year, and some 100,000 people enter the country every year to live permanently in Australia. We have large numbers of New Zealand residents who move freely from their country to Australia. So it is important that the laws relating to extradition be reviewed. I commend the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for bringing this legislation forward. I point out that the last matter relating to extradition that I could find in the Federal Law Reports was a case involving a New Zealander who came here in 1979. A few years later the New Zealand law officers issued a summons for the arrest of this citizen. Eventually, Mr Justice Yeldham determined that while it was difficult for such a person to go back to New Zealand, it was not too severe a penalty to require him to return to face trial on a serious charge. The whole tradition of extradition law is such that a visitor to a country who is charged as or alleged to be a fugitive should not be taken back to another country to face trial for a political offence. In the original Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act there is a list of offences that can be brought into play in these proceedings. It has been a long tradition since extradition came into force in the last century that political offences be excluded. The legislation before Parliament today contains some significant amendments. It allows for the voluntary return of an offender. It allows for an appeal by a requesting country. Previously only a fugitive could appeal from a magistrate's decision. There is an executive discretion to refuse extradition. This proposed amendment will extend the Attorney-General's discretion to refuse extradition in any situation where it would be unjust or oppressive to grant it. At present such discretion may be exercised only if an offence is trivial, if an accusation was made mala fide or if there was a lapse of time which would make it unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. In the case of Bryan v. Preston, in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Mr Justice Yeldham held that a lapse of time of three years was not considered too long to be unjust or oppressive. So, presumably there would have to be a very considerable lapse of time in which witnesses may have died or gone missing. In that case a person accused of a serious offence might not obtain justice on being returned to another country for trial. Another significant amendment in the Bill is that there will henceforth be extradition for fiscal offences. This amendment makes it clear that offences against laws relating to taxation, Customs duties, foreign exchange controls and other revenue matters which hitherto have not been extraditable will be extraditable. This is a significant change, and it is part of the Government's plan to ensure that the extradition laws relate to issues that are relevant to citizens and that people who breach the revenue laws of a nation cannot escape justice by fleeing that country. There is a speciality rule, which has been touched on by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Menzies. Another amendment relates to offences of a political character. The Attorney-General and not a magistrate will make a decision on these matters. This amendment follows the practice of the Executive in the United States of America. I believe it is the role of the Executive to decide who should be deported to another country to face trial. It should not be the role of a magistrate presiding in a Court of Petty Sessions to have to make a decision in proceedings of a very serious nature and to adjudicate on such charges. Other matters in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill have been touched on by the previous speaker. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech on the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill pointed out that the amendments proposed in that Bill were being introduced by the Government to facilitate the fight against major crime, particularly illicit dealing in narcotic drugs. This is part of the Commonwealth's overall plan to combat drug trafficking. It is a matter of concern to all members of this House and to all other Australians that the laws on extradition must not protect people who are criminals, people who flee our country to avoid apprehension or, alternatively, people who have come to our nation to avoid trial in their own countries. I believe that this legislation is quite straightforward. The honourable member for Menzies touched on the Trimbole case, but of course it had nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. Trimbole, or 'Aussie Bob' as he was called in Ireland, escaped on a technicality due to a breach of Irish constitutional law and this had nothing to do with the extradition law that had or had not been brought in. He was wrongly apprehended and was wrongly charged by members of the Irish police in their enthusiasm to apprehend him. It was on a constitutional point that Mr Justice Egan in the Irish Supreme Court directed that Trimbole be released. The legislation before the House today is commendable legislation. I recommend it to the House and call for honourable members to reject the amendments that have been circulated in the name of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.16) —I am sorry to have to start by saying to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), that his hope that the amendments circulated in my name will be rejected will not be realised, as I have been advised by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that he accepts them. I am very glad that he does because I think that the amendments, which I will explain at a later stage, improve the two Bills before the House, namely, the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985. The Opposition view, as outlined by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), is that the amendments before the House are useful. They make improvements. To the extent that they do they should of course be supported by the Opposition. We did have a point of real contention on those matters which have now been accepted by the Attorney-General. Since they have been accepted, I do not intend to spend any time putting the arguments that I would have put had my amendments not been accepted. There is no general right of extradition under international law. For those who are students of history or, indeed, of pre-history, it seems that the first extradition treaty was concluded in the year 1280 BC, or thereabouts, between Egypt and a Hittite prince, for the return of criminals. Perhaps the most well known of all extradition treaties was the treaty between Rome and Syria which provided for the surrender of Hannibal. However, the real beginnings of international co-operation in extradition matters began somewhere in the nineteenth or late eighteenth century. There is a need for us to look to extradition measures and to examine the means by which they can become more efficient and more speedy, because it is all too obvious that speed is so often of the essence in extradition cases. The Trimbole case, which unhappily failed from our point of view because an Irish court took the view that the original charge against Trimbole was in effect a trumped up charge and that therefore the whole matter was tainted, serves to emphasise how necessary it is that procedures should be flexible, efficient and quick. The need for reform in this area is summed up in an excellent book by Mr Ivor Stanbrook and his brother, entitled The Law and Practice of Extradition. I refer to page 28 of the introduction, which states: There is manifestly an urgent need for the reform of the law of extradition in view of its great complexity and present inability to deal with the growing problems of international gangsterism. Comparatively few of the world's states are linked together in formal extradition arrangements; moreover, those arrangements which exist are hedged about with restrictions which owe more to narrow-mined nationalism than to ideals of justice. Exemption clauses arising out of the nationality of the offender and the political character of the offence may be justified where there are deep ideological divisions between states: among democracies greater mutual trust might be expected. I think that certainly should apply amongst democracies. Unfortunately, there are too few of them. The particular matter that is going to be brought before the House by way of amendment to the Bill relates to the discretion, or the power, to put it more accurately, which was to be taken from the courts and vested in the Attorney-General to determine whether or not an offence for which a person was allegedly sought to be extradited was an offence of a political character. The amendments proposed to the two Bills by the Opposition effectively do this. Firstly, the amendments preserve the position of the courts so that the courts can say: 'No, he should not be extradited because the offence is of a political character'. Secondly, they add an additional safeguard by adding these words to the court's power to deny extradition, namely: or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character. Those words are modelled on words which appear in the United Kingdom Extradition Act of 1870. The need for them these days can be well appreciated. It is easy enough for a foreign power to trump up a charge against one of its citizens and then to move in the courts of this country and say 'We want this man back'-to wherever the country may be-'for the purposes of meeting charges that he drove a car while drunk and while doing so killed somebody'; whereas the truth of the matter is that extradition is sought, not to have the man or woman brought back to meet criminal charges but so that that person can be brought back to meet charges of an essentially political nature, such as crimes against the state, which Soviet Russia has made so infamous. Effectively, therefore, we add that additional safeguard when the matter has been considered by the court. When the matter has been considered by the Attorney-General, his powers are on all fours with the court's so that he can independently come to the view that what is proposed is that a man or woman should be taken out of this country to meet essentially a political charge. The great benefit of this kind of tandem approach is that on occasions, no doubt, courts can be too strict and perhaps too ill-informed of the outside world in the way in which they go about dealing with a matter. On occasions-not while the present Attorney-General is in the chair, but on future occasions-there may be Attorneys-General, of whatever political persuasion, who because of their own political views would take an unsympathetic and fundamentally wrong view about a person's case when that person said: 'Look, the truth of the matter is that they are seeking to get me not for what I have allegedly done in criminal terms but for my politics'. That provides a nice balance and a nice safeguard so that the Attorney-General has the power and the courts have the power. Of course, there would be no appeal against the Attorney-General's exercise of his powers. As I have indicated, that is the important matter the Opposition wishes to put before the House. The only other comments I wish to make relate to matters that appear in Mr Justice Stewart's report of February 1983. I appreciate that law reform is difficult, or can be difficult, but we must all appreciate the great urgency of the need to come to grips in all ways with organised crime. It is of no use that we can prove in Australia that a person who has fled the jurisdiction has been guilty of a number of serious crimes if we cannot get him back to try him. It is because of that kind of consideration that the recommendations made by Mr Justice Stewart need to be considered, and should have been considered long before now. The Government-allowing more than two years to pass without coming forward with any answers to the proposals made by Mr Justice Stewart, as outlined by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown)-has moved with all the speed and sense of dedication and purpose of an arthritic tortoise. When the Attorney-General speaks to the House I ask him to advise us when it is that we can expect to have a response on the three recommendations made by Mr Justice Stewart and which were referred to by my friend the honourable member for Menzies. In particular, what about the case where a person is in prison in another country, where evidence is available in Australia of a very compelling nature to the effect that he has been guilty of serious crimes, where the Crown could confidently expect that he would be convicted of those crimes, and yet nothing can be done because, as in the case of Terrence John Clarke, he is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 20 years. It does seem that something is manifestly wrong if we cannot find the means of dealing with that situation because after 20 years the witnesses are dead, those who are still alive have very little real memory of what has taken place, and the acquittal of that individual is virtually assured after he gets out. I agree with the honourable member for Menzies that we do not say on behalf of the Opposition that the proposals canvassed by Mr Justice Stewart should necessarily be agreed to. But they are very serious, they are considered, and they come from a man who has this Government's highest confidence. It is essential that we have a detailed and speedy response to them. It would be very worth while in response to those kinds of issues raised by Mr Justice Stewart and in response to the general issue of ensuring that the extradition laws of this country are efficient, flexible, work simply, and will assist us in the fight against organised crime if a paper were put before this Parliament similar to the paper put before the United Kingdom Parliament in February 1983 dealing with the whole question of extradition and setting out recommendations as to what should be done with the present law and what changes should be made to the present law. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to that course because it would enable the House to have a highly informed debate upon an extremely important subject. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(4.28) —Like my colleagues on this side of the House, I am always surprised at the temerity of those opposite who condemn this Government for lack of speed in anything concerning the position of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The only contribution the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has made is not to speak for the 30 minutes allocated to him. He introduced no positive material which would assist this House in determining the merits of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill now before us. Extradition can be defined as the surrender by one nation to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offence outside his territory and within the jurisdiction of the other, in order that the latter country may try the individual or punish him as the case may be. Foreign extradition is solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. The Attorney-General's Department administers the relevant Commonwealth legislation in this area of the law. Until 1966 the basic law of foreign extradition in Australia was the Imperial Extradition Acts of 1870 to 1936. These Acts applied to Australia the extradition treaties negotiated by Great Britain prior to World War II, which were extended to Australia as a British colony and later as a self-governing dominion. The Commonwealth Parliament, under its powers to legislate in respect of external affairs, in 1966 passed legislation, the Extradition (Foreign States) Act, which continued these treaties in force but which also enabled Australia to implement its own extradition treaties. Thus the Extradition (Foreign States) Act applies to any foreign state where immediately before the commencement of the Act an Order-in-Council in force under the extradition Acts applied such Acts to that foreign state and extended them to the Commonwealth of Australia. The Extradition (Foreign States) Act may also be applied to any foreign state by regulation under the Act when a treaty is entered into between a foreign state and Australia. By contrast, extradition between member states of the Commonwealth has always proceeded on a non-treaty basis, being seen as a system of rendition between different parts of the British Empire owing common allegiance and sharing the same legal concepts and cultural values. Until 1966 the relevant legislation in force was the Imperial Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881. At a conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers in 1966 it was agreed that this scheme be continued but be revised by the adoption of uniform extradition legislation in each country. Australia implemented this scheme in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. It is not every member country of the Commonwealth to which the Act applies but only such countries as are declared-those countries which have implemented the 1966 Commonwealth scheme. Although treaties formed the original basis for the application of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act, the Act was amended in 1974 to provide for it to be applied by regulation to any country whose law, in the opinion of the Australian Government, permits extradition. This amendment was moved because of the popularity of Brazil-a country which was covered by an imperial treaty-but was terminated by Brazil in 1913, for the likes of Biggs and Barton. Although the Act still continues the policy of reciprocity, a former treaty is no longer a pre-condition of the Commonwealth's power to extradite from a foreign state. The Act now so applies to Brazil. As the Act now stands, it is necessary for the requesting state to have enacted an offence in corresponding terms to Australian law, be it State or Federal law. Schedule one in both Acts lists those extraditable crimes upon which the Attorney-General can act. There is in form rather than in substance a conflict between non-common law countries, such as Napoleonic code countries, and common law countries. While an act or omission may be, in substance, an offence and be an act or omission punishable in both states-if it is punishable, as such, it would normally permit extradition-that act or omission may not be in a form recognised in Australia and not listed in the present Schedule to the Act. The removal of the list of specified offences recognised the inherent difficulties of comparative law-the difficulty of making comparisons between common law and non-common law countries. Its removal will enhance the existing legislation without removing the vital safeguards of insisting that the act or omission complained of would constitute, if proved, an offence under existing Australian or State law. A further amendment facilitates arrangements with non-common law countries to allow extradition on the basis of a statement of facts. This removes the necessity of lengthy and difficult hearings in Australia, hearings which are analagous to committal proceedings. This concept is unknown to non-common law countries. As the situation now stands, a fugitive has the advantage of conducting a full preliminary trial in Australia involving the calling of witnesses, the examination and testing of documents and any expert evidence, without any necessity of introducing rebuttal evidence or presenting a defence. The fugitive rights are not diminished in the proposed amendments. Those amendments do not remove the right of a fugitive to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The right of the Supreme Court or Federal Court to grant the prerogative writ has not been diminished in any way. The Act vests in the Attorney-General, a magistrate hearing the application and any court to which an application is made for a writ of habeas corpus the power to refuse to surrender a person if satisfied that the offence is trivial, that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice, or that the time that has elapsed since the offence was committed is such that having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence it would be unjust, oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender a person. There is also the unfettered power of the Executive to refuse extradition on a ground other than that mentioned. With respect to the amendment proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), of course, the question of whether a crime is a political matter is not within the province necessarily of the legal system. Magistrates or judges have no special knowledge of international situations which would necessarily enable them to determine in a judicial manner whether the complaint alleged by the requesting state is or is not a political offence. Hence the amendment, while it is non-objectionable, does not take away the fact that ultimately the right to refuse extradition always lies in the Attorney-General. So the Attorney-General ultimately always has the power to refuse on any of those grounds the extradition of any person in this country. Like honourable members opposite, I am very pleased to see included in the Bill, in conformity with the European Convention on Extradition, those matters of a fiscal or revenue nature. There is no doubt that in this world today large companies and other individuals, be they of the Left persuasion, as is suggested, or of the extreme Right persuasion, as is not suggested, are more than anxious to move into democratic style countries and bleed the fiscal taxation systems dry, remove from countries such as Australia large amounts of capital into tax havens of the world and then move off-shore in the hope of avoiding the due punishment and retribution they deserve. It has been a loophole in the Act in the past. I am very pleased to see this very positive step to have that position remedied. Like the other speakers who have taken part in this debate today, I do not intend to exercise my right to speak for 20 minutes. I think that the Bill is highly commendable. I do not agree that this Government has been slow to act in the past. We have had only 20 months in government. Sometimes the Opposition tends to forget that. I am sure that the honourable member for Menzies, in his term as Attorney-General, was well aware of the time and detail involved in getting paperwork moving through the system. I see that he happily nods his head in agreement. I am rather pleased that in such a short space of time, the Government has moved in this manner and with the speed it has to get the amendment up. I am sure that the matters which have been raised by honourable members opposite in the debate will be attended to in the future. I am sure that the Attorney-General will handle those matters and give the information required. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.38) —Speaking in this debate on behalf of the National Party of Australia, I would like to congratulate belatedly the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on his new appointment. I believe the whole of Australia was very pleased when the previous occupant of that office was moved to other duties. I applaud any legislation in this place or anywhere else which seeks to hobble the international drug trade. To that extent I applaud the Government for bringing in this legislation which will assist in some measure in achieving this. As the Attorney-General mentioned in his second reading speech, the legislation provides for amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of the same year. These Acts govern extradition between Australia and other countries. I am concerned, as indeed are other members of the Opposition, over the removal of the role of the magistrates in determining what are offences of a political character. As the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) mentioned, the Attorney-General has always had the authority to determine finally whether anyone ought to be extradited. However, we on this side are loath to see this area removed from the courts. The Attorney-General has ample time and discretion to determine whether someone ought to be extradited. We believe that this discretion ought to be exercised only after the ordinary judicial process has been exhausted. I am a little concerned at the fact that some totalitarian and Marxist countries in the world might not have the tradition of respect for the rule of law that we on this side of the chamber and some honourable members opposite share. That is, of course, respect for the rule of law which has been handed down to us over centuries of legal development. I wish to mention the situation in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a country in which any resemblance to a Western democracy is likely to be purely coincidental. In many cases people are not able to exercise basic rights. They are confined to prison without trial. They disappear. I ask the Attorney-General to take into account the nature of a country's judicial system when he is called upon to exercise his discretion. It would be a very sad day for Australia if people were extradited and taken to a country where they would not have any opportunity of receiving a fair trial. The legislation provides for the voluntary return of fugitives overseas who do not intend to take advantage of the full extradition process. To this extent I suppose this provision is a bit of a yawn and almost meaningless. If a person wants to come back, well and good. Let us hope that he does so that he can face justice. I support the right of appeal by any requesting country and, of course, the extradition of people who have allegedly committed a fiscal offence. I warn parties on both sides of the House that they should exercise the authority given by this legislation with great prudence. I intend to support the amendments which will be ably moved at the Committee stage by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I do not intend to detain the House further. I urge that the amendments to this legislation be carried and that subsequently it be passed in its amended form. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.42) —Like the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who has just concluded his speech, I do not intend to canvass at length the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985. In speaking to the Bills I reflect back to 1966 when Mr Snedden, the then member for Bruce and Attorney-General, introduced the legislation which the Bills now before us seek to amend. He indicated to the Parliament in 1966 that the legislation he was introducing was in fact amending legislation that had existed since the nineteenth century. I say to those honourable members opposite that even though there does not seem to be too much conflict in what has been said in this place today, if anyone has been slow to move in this field it has been the present Opposition. We would certainly be speedsters compared with the coalition governments, which took nearly a century to amend the legislation. It is interesting to note what the then Attorney-General had to say in 1966. He said: The Bill now before the House is concerned with extradition between Commonwealth countries. Its introduction follows two conferences between Commonwealth Law Ministers. The first discussion took place in Canberra in September 1965 when the Commonwealth Law Ministers were here at the invitation of the Australian Government following the Commonwealth and Empire Law Conference in Sydney. It seems that the conference had to be held in Sydney to spur things along. The then Attorney-General continued: Law Ministers then recommended to their Governments that a special conference should be convened in 1966 to complete a scheme of extradition arrangements between Commonwealth countries. The second conference . . . was held in London in April of this year. That is 1966. He continued: The Bill is designed to give effect to the scheme worked out in detail in London. Consequently 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. The legislation now before us provides for the amendments to the Australian legislation to which I have previously referred. I wish once again to quote what was said by the then Attorney-General in 1966 in respect of what I think is the basis of extradition law. He said: A proper scheme of extradition must, as honourable members will perceive, satisfy two interests. There is first the interest that the peoples of all countries have in ensuring that acts that are universally considered as crimes should not go unpunished. On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the person whose surrender is sought. A request for surrender, for example, that is made for ulterior reasons clearly ought not to be acceded to. The scheme worked out in London . . . takes due account of both interests. I believe the amendments encompassed in the Bills now before the House take those two principles into account. However, because of dramatic changes in our society, including international travel, the spread of crime on an international base and the sophistication of international crime rings, legislative streamlining was inevitable. I trust that this Government in its fight against organised crime will continue to review this legislation on a regular basis. In speaking to the Bills in this place in 1966, Mr Whitlam, the then honourable member for Werriwa and, of course, a well-respected and prominent jurist of his time, referred to what was then the dormant state of extradition and argued that in the circumstances the Bills of the day were not likely to arouse public interest. This is in stark contrast to the problems that confront the Government at present. The honourable member, who subsequently became the leader of this nation, went on to say: They are, however, Bills which can be brought into the limelight overnight. I think we can be confident that the next time a crisis arises in these fields-because they are always crises, there is never a trivial case of extradition-Australia will be in a better position both to ensure that persons who committed crimes in Australia are brought to book and to ensure that persons who are alleged to have committed crimes overseas and who are now in Australia are not extradited except for good reason. These words, of course, echoed those of the Attorney-General of the day. I would like to refer briefly to the amending legislation before us. Initially I will speak to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. Under the present legislation, if a magistrate declines to commit a fugitive to await a warrant for surrender to the requesting country, that country has no right to seek review of that decision. Notwithstanding that, the fugitive may challenge the magistrate's decision by applying to the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction in which he is held for a writ of habeas corpus. The proposed amendment will allow-I note there is no conflict in this regard-a review of questions of law and questions of fact by the Supreme Court at the instance of the requesting country. I will now turn to the discretion placed in the Executive to refuse extradition. The present Act vests in the Attorney-General, magistrate and the court to which application is made for a writ of habeas corpus the power to refuse to surrender a person if satisfied that the offence is trivial, that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice, or that the time which has elapsed since the offence was committed is such that, having regard to the circumstances of the Commission of the offence, it would be unjust and oppressive or too severe a punishment to surrender the person. It is clear that there are circumstances not covered by these specific instances. Those circumstances would make it unjust to surrender the fugitive and provision is made that surrender should be able to be refused for any other sufficient cause. I emphasise the words 'sufficient cause'. This amendment extends the Attorney-General's discretion in any situation where it would be unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. This extent of power given to the Attorney-General at present provides that the discretion may be exercised only where the triviality of the offence, malafides or lapses of time would make it unjust or oppressive to grant extradition. It is clear under extradition law that the hearing for extradition is not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the fugitive but rather whether the case extends to justify the fugitive's trial in the requesting country. Magistrates have in the past, as a matter of precedence, permitted fugitives to lead evidence to challenge the merits of the prima facie case sought to be established by the requesting country. Amendments included in this Bill make it clear that such evidence may not be led. The fugitive, of course, still has the right to argue that the prima facie case has not been established. Finally, in relation to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill, I briefly refer to an important principle embodied under the provisions of the specialty role. This amendment makes it clear that no longer is it necessary for an extradited person to be given an opportunity of returning to the requesting country before being tried for any offence other than the offence in respect of which extradition was sought. The amendment now provides that the extradited person is to be given an opportunity of leaving the requesting country. I am proud of the accomplishments of this Government. I am not suggesting for one moment that we have exhausted all avenues and that all that has to be done has been done-far from it. We need only to look at the words of Mr Whitlam to see how things can change overnight in this field. That is why I ask this Government and any future government to keep in mind the fact that we must continually and regularly review the provisions of the extradition law. I note that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is present in the chamber, took part in the debate in 1966 and obviously would have added some quite positive comments to that debate. He is still with us some 19 years later debating these Bills. I note with interest and with some degree of comfort what he said the other day when he was announcing the Government's initiatives on extradition and the agreement reached with Finland. I wish to quote what the Attorney-General said on that occasion. I think they are sobering thoughts. He said: There is an increasing international element in major crime today, and in particular major crime involving illicit dealing in narcotic drugs. We must be able to effectively apprehend our fugitives overseas and return them to Australia to be dealt with under our law. The amendments to the extradition laws will assist in that process, in particular, by providing a proper base for the Task Force-- another initiative of this Attorney-General- to negotiate efficient modern extradition arrangements with overseas countries. The treaty with Finland is a good example. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.53) —This is an unusual field for a non-lawyer such as myself to enter into. However, I feel that the extradition amendments before the House warrant some comment from a non-lawyer. The original legislation is old and warrants review. The Government has set about to make that review. Some of the main aspects of the review were notified to the Press by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on 13 February this year when he was in a shade of bother concerning the extradition of Mr Trimbole. The Attorney-General at that stage drew the attention of the Australian people to the amendments that he proposed to the extradition laws. The first amendment the Attorney is in the process of having executed in the House today enables Australia to conclude a no list treaty whereby the offences for which extradition is granted are not listed in a Schedule attached to the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill. Instead a blanket cover is substituted covering all offences with penalties of imprisonment ranging from 12 months to life as being offences which will warrant extradition. One notable exception is dealt with in the memorandum attached to the Bill; that is, the assassination of a foreign head of state. That provision has been removed, but there is a note in the memorandum saying that the Attorney-General has power to make a decision anyway. Genocide remains as one of the extraditable offences but the assassination of a head of state has been taken out of section 9 of the principal Act. I cannot quite follow the logic in that process. Both are abominable crimes and I would have thought that we would have demonstrated our bona fides by giving a firm commitment to people with whom we are engaging in treaties by saying: 'If your head of state is assassinated by an Australian, extradition should take place'. I accept the maintenance of genocide as a non-political action for the purposes of this legislation. The Bill refers to 'an offence of a political character'. For the purposes of the Bill, genocide is removed from the provisions of political activity and assessed as being deplorable, enabling extradition to take place. The assassination of a head of state is not included. I think that is an oversight. The memorandum indicates that it may be an oversight. I believe that it could be a significant factor when negotiating treaties. The second main feature which the Attorney drew to the attention of the Australian people in the process of re-examining the extradition (Foreign States) legislation was the amendment to facilitate extradition arrangements with countries with a European legal tradition by making allowance for the differences in approach to evidence in preliminary hearings adopted in those countries. Certainly, the current Act displays that character in that there is no need to provide evidence but the copy of the warrant for arrest and other legal processes can be presented to the Attorney-General or an Australian magistrate and extradition can follow from that. I have no objection to that process. It simplifies the extradition process because the different processes of law in countries around the world will necessitate a different approach. The Government is to be commended for that. The no list approach, I think, is warranted. I, like the shadow Attorney-General, cannot quite understand why it has been done. I look forward to the explanation from the Attorney on that matter. I draw to his attention the question of the assassination of a head of state. I think we should reactivate that. I am not moving an amendment along those lines, but perhaps between this House and the other place the Attorney should consider whether that section is not reactivated. I speak in regard to this matter mainly because of my concern at what I would term some lethargy on the part of the Government. I am not as critical as some of my colleagues of the slowness of the Government in making these amendments. I do not wish that to be misunderstood. The report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking came down at the very end of 1983 and was not a matter for the previous Government. Things move slowly in government, but we knew that significant criminals who were former Australian residents were living overseas. Mr Justice Stewart drew attention to these matters and to the precise changes that he recommended for our extradition processes. He drew particular attention to the specific matters that he thought ought to be amended. The Government has taken no action. It has a model treaty and buried somewhere in its departments are some proposed amendments to the principal Act. It all came too late for Mr Robert Trimbole. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said that it was a constitutional matter that prevented the extradition of Trimbole. That is partly true but not completely true. The fact is that Trimbole was arrested under Irish law for possessing arms and for running drugs. He was let go and re-arrested when the treaty arrangements with Ireland had been processed. He was then brought before the court on the basis of extradition arrangements which were instigated by the Australian Government. The American Government was also watching these processes very carefully because it was concerned that some legality, some slip of the legal process, could mean that wanted criminals from the United States sojourning in Ireland could also escape the net by using a similar process to the one that Trimbole used. I believe that the Government could have been far more active. It is a great shame if there is criticism against the Australian Administration over that matter and we are seen to be wanting in the pursuit of criminals of Trimbole's type. Trimbole has a name that is recognised right throughout Australia. He has been said to have been responsible for some dreadful things, including the murder, or the arrangement of the murder, of Donald Mackay. The only government that has not been very active in this field is the Government of New South Wales. It should have been far more active in pressing the Australian Government to expedite changes to extradition law. The slowness in moving in this area extends to many other areas in which extradition law could also be affected. The change from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority has been slow, painstaking and has produced little action. The Government has not been active in pursuing recommendations made by Costigan as well as by Stewart. In fact, in November last the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that if re-elected he would introduce laws related to recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission. Those laws relate to the prevention of extortion by unionists, the debarring from office of officials convicted of indictable offences, compensation for victims, and other matters with which the Government should be proceeding. The Government should have a checklist of measures it needs to adopt in all areas. In the Attorney-General's area, if there had been a checklist of matters raised by Costigan, Stewart and others so that regular progress could have been reported to the Government, I am sure this matter would not have occurred. I am sure that the failure by the Australian authorities to have an effective extradition process with the Republic of Ireland would not have happened if there was a regular check. I say to the Attorney-General that I believe in government he needs to cover areas of significance in crime. He must have regular reports on what the Australian Federal Police are doing. He must have regular assessments of where changes to legislation are in the system so that the Government can exert pressure and make progress, and so that those changes are instigated in this Parliament. I believe that, outside that area, the Government also has to be able to get reports from various Ministers as to what their departments are doing. The Attorney-General's Department is a significant one-and should report on where it is going with prosecutions, preparation of papers and the expedition of cases that are being heard in the courts. The Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles, had that responsibility. Reports should be coming from him as well as from Mr Ian Temby. Unless the Government is watching all of these matters week by week, month by month, it will find that in two years time there will be another instance like the Trimbole instance because the Government has failed to be active, concerned and diligent in every area of the pursuit and prevention of major crime in Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.03) —in reply-I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. It has been wide-ranging and has raised a number of matters which everybody would like me to answer. I do not know whether I can answer all of them to the satisfaction of honourable members. I commence with the remarks of the last speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I appreciate his remarks. They were very apt. He wanted particularly to know why the provisions dealing with genocide and the assassination of a head of state were being removed from the legislation. Those provisions are being changed only in the sense of their not being political offences. They are still offences in the sense that they are murder. There is no difficulty about that matter. They are not deemed to be political offences in that sense. The honourable member raised a matter relating to Trimbole, and I suppose we tend to get political about this matter. Let me make the point that Trimbole left Australia in 1981. Some of the offences, particularly the Wilson murders, were committed in 1980. They, of course, occurred in Victoria. The honourable member should not get too blinkered in thinking that all problems relate to New South Wales. He must also understand that Commonwealth warrants were issued too for offences under Commonwealth law. Really, the issue is that the man had good legal advice about where we did not have treaties. I applaud what the honourable member said. It is important to keep up a monitoring arrangement. In the case of Ireland, for example, a treaty was concluded in 1977 and lost. That must astound honourable members. Mr N. A. Brown —And lost? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Lost in the sense that nobody bothered to bring it out of the drawer. It was concluded but not brought into action. I am not making any complaints, but honourable members know who was in government from 1977 until we took over. I have to tell the House these things, although not in any vitriolic sense, because the same thing could happen to me. However, let me make it clear that in the Trimbole case the Attorney-General's Department worked very hard and assiduously and, in fact, brought into operation treaty arrangements which allowed our warrants to be valid. The difficulty in that case is a legal one, which I think will be decided this evening, as a matter of interest. Whether Mr Trimbole will be present to hear the verdict is another matter. The problem was that because he was arrested for an offence that was not able to be proven under Irish law-it did not relate to our warrants but to an Irish offence-there was deemed to be the taint of illegality. There was a rather unusual decision that that taint of illegality prevented our warrants coming into operation. The point the honourable member made was valid in that we live in a world in which modern transport makes countries very close. People travel across the world very rapidly. Criminals, particularly those dealing in narcotics, use all the available conveyances to get in and out of countries very quickly indeed. This week we had the benefit of concluding a treaty with Finland, which is interesting. I imagine that people would be thinking that 30 or 40 years ago nobody was interested in looking at that problem, but it is very much alive today. The contributions made by my colleagues and also by those opposite have been very valuable in making the public aware that this is an ongoing operation. What we are about in this legislation is making amendments to two existing pieces of legislation virtually to update them. This will allow us to negotiate more effective treaties than those we now have. As a Commonwealth country we inherited what are called the Commonwealth country treaties-35 in number. They are a little outmoded because they relate to what are called specific offences and not necessarily to what we would be looking at in a more modern situation-offences punishable by a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more, which avoids the list. In other words, one has a difficulty if one is trying to talk about what is on the list. If an Australian offence is not on the list of the other country we are in jeopardy. We have overcome that problem. Let me now deal with the matters raised by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), who led the debate for the Opposition. One matter was a query about voluntary return. I am advised that it is availed of by a number of fugitives each year, so it is of practical benefit. He then raised a couple of other matters related to the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. One related to the recommendation that trials be held in the absence of the accused who is unable to be found or is imprisoned overseas. I am advised that the Government rejected that recommendation in an announcement in the Senate in December 1983. It did so for the reason that it was deemed to be contrary to our standard of proof and our standard of law that a person could be tried in his absence. The proposition that people could be tried in their absence was also deemed to be a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So we have a difficulty in proceeding with a trial when a person is imprisoned overseas. A statement was made in the Senate to that effect by the previous Attorney-General. A point was raised about the recommendation that the Attorney-General's Department monitor all extraditions. That is being done; I am assured that that is the position. The honourable member also asked about defining an extraditable crime by reference to a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment. He asked why a lesser penalty should not warrant extradition. I remind the honourable gentleman that at present under the provisions of section 19 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act and under a section of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act an extraditable offence is defined as being an offence that carries a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment because it is thought that any lesser penalty would relate to a much lesser offence that would not warrant extradition. As to the point about bringing back people from overseas, we are anxious to do that through the modern concept of mutual assistance treaties, particularly in criminal matters, so that we can bring people back to Australia to give evidence to assist justice in this country. So it is a matter that is very much to the fore. In the mutual assistance area it would require other countries to give us assistance, particularly in respect of financial records and other matters. Switzerland is a case in point. It might be appropriate to mention that I understand the United States of America is about to conclude, if it has not already, a mutual assistance treaty with Switzerland. In that context there would be opportunities to bring people back here on the basis of getting evidence and records. I make the point, as I have already told the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), that I accept his proposed amendments. I note that they relate to a clear recognition that in matters of political offences there might be a suggestion that another offence might be used which could be a subterfuge for a political offence. I am reminded that in February of this year a paper was circulated in the United Kingdom which covers this matter. Mr Spender —Yes, that is the extradition one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and it makes the point, as the honourable member has said, that this is an appropriate way to talk about the offences of a political character. Apparently it has been in the British extradition Act since 1870. The paper makes the point that the Act does not define the expression 'political character' and judicial interpretation has demonstrated the difficulty of devising a satisfactory definition. Nevertheless, I will accept it. The courts have, however, recognised the need to preserve the freedom to grant political asylum in appropriate cases. I thank the honourable gentleman for his contribution. I think it will be a worthwhile addition as in no way does it detract from the fact that I would also have a discretion. Irrespective of that, if a decision went the wrong way, from the point of view of judging the political issue, in other words if the court rejected it, I could still have a chance to look at it. I think the main thrust of the debate was whether we were just grandstanding, if Opposition members want to put it that way, or whether we were making effective progress. I think we are making effective progress. I have some notes here which clearly indicate what I think honourable members opposite are all about. An extradition hearing is not a trial of guilt or innocence, it is simply a procedure to enable a person to be returned to the appropriate jurisdiction for charges against him or her to be determined. The difficulty we are having is that civil law countries have different legal systems and they have had considerable difficulty in furnishing evidence in the form or of the standard that we have always insisted upon. There are now amendments that will facilitate the conclusion of treaties which we otherwise could not have entered into because of that situation. Requests for extradition will still have to supply a full statement of the facts alleged against a fugitive. Under already existing treaties that statement must be in the form of prima facie evidence as for a committal hearing. So all present safeguards are being retained in negotiating treaties. Regard will be had to the justice system in the country concerned. I think it was the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) who raised the issue of African countries. We must acknowledge that there is a lack of treaties with a number of African countries. We would be very anxious to achieve success there and we are going to work at that. The idea of having the no-list amendment gives greater flexibility and it will again facilitate treaty negotiations in that time does not have to be spent on agreeing to a form of words to cover an offence which although penalising the same conduct is described in a different way. A proceeding for the taking of evidence for an extradition request is not a trial, as we have said, but it is generally understood that fugitives should not be able formally to appear at such proceedings. The amendment we have moved makes this clear, and it is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Trimbole v. Dugan, as the former Attorney-General decided on 2 November 1984. If fugitives have a right of appearance it could be possible they could delay the proceedings for a sufficient time to ensure that Australia would not be able to comply with its obligations to make a formal request, supported by evidence, to another country within the time limits imposed by that country. On the question of fugitives not giving evidence, I inform honourable members that an extradition hearing is initiated by a request from another country, but the matter is handled by the Australian authorities. If the fugitive wishes to controvert the material alleged against him the appropriate place for that to be done is in the country where the trial is to take place. It is generally understood that fugitives should not be able to challenge the merits of a case presented in the extradition hearing. On the question of bail, the two Acts provide that the magistrate may grant bail. There was a decision in Queensland where it was held that the Supreme Court may not grant bail. The case was called Re: Groves. This amendment simply confirms that judgment. In no way does it take away a fugitive's right to review a decision of a magistrate by way of habeas corpus. At present a fugitive may make application for habeas corpus in a State Supreme Court and at the same time apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the magistrate's decision. The same issues would be involved in each application. The amendment simply prevents duplicity of remedy as the use of that duplicity can be a delaying tactic. Having restated those matters I finish by mentioning what progress has been made in the extradition task force. I am reminded that the task force was established as recently as the 15th of last month. It comprises officers of the Attorney-General's department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. In that short space of time this task force has settled a draft model treaty which will be the basis of negotiations with foreign states for modern extradition treaties. A number of approaches have been made to European countries opening the way for discussion in relation to modern bilateral treaties. A proposal has already been put to and is being considered by officials of the Federal Republic of Germany and which, if accepted, will facilitate extradition between Australia and that country, pending the coming into force of a treaty between the two countries. Draft regulations have been prepared for the approval of the Governor-General extending the application of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act to 14 Commonwealth countries not presently declared under that Act. Discussions have taken place with the Republic of South Africa on the basis of extradition. There has been a thorough investigation into the status of Australia's extradition arrangements with former colonies of the metropolitan powers of France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands, which may have succeeded to extradition treaties entered into by the relevant metropolitan powers and Great Britain. Australia may have effective extradition arrangements with such of the former colonies which recognise double succession in relation to extradition treaties. Work has been completed on Bills which substantially amend the two Acts. The possibility of a number of countries applying the Extradition (Foreign States) Act to those countries to enable extradition to take place on the basis of reciprocity has been investigated. Discussions are also taking place with the United States and Britain in relation to extradition generally. I mention that only to show that a lot of work has been done because it is urgent and it should have been done long ago. The delay and the faults have been recognised. I commend my Department and its officials for their enthusiasm and assistance in this regard and I thank honourable members for their contribution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 6, page 4, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: ''6. Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1) 'or if the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character'.''. (2) Clause 8, page 5, line 26, at the end of proposed paragraph 12 (2) (b) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. (3) Clause 12, page 10, line 15, at the end of proposed paragraph 17 (2) (d) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. (4) Clause 12, page 10, line 42, at the end of proposed paragraph 17 (2B) (d) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. The Opposition's amendments, as the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has explained under a division of labour between the two of us, have already been explained to the House and I shall be extremely brief. The effects of the amendments are: First, the role of the courts is preserved; and secondly, an additional safeguard which, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, is taken from the 1870 extradition Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, is brought into play, where the surrender has in fact been made, by the addition of the words: . . . that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character. One cannot be too cautious in these matters. One can easily find cases in which extradition is made under the guise that a criminal offence has been committed, but the fact is that it is simply dressed up for the purposes of seeking to get a person returned to his country for political reasons and to be dealt with for a political offence. The amendments preserve the proposed powers which will be vested in the Attorney-General so that he can conclude that the offence in question is in effect a political offence, even though the court might come to the opposite conclusion. Therefore, we have two general safeguards: Firstly, the courts can conclude that the offence in question is an offence of a political character; secondly, even when the court does not reach that conclusion, the Attorney-General can. And, as the Attorney-General has said, there may be cases in which courts will not have the material before them and, indeed, cases in which courts will not be as politically astute or as politically well versed as an Attorney-General may be expected to be. That being said, I do not think it is necessary to say anything more about these amendments. They are perfectly clear and I am very glad that the Attorney-General has taken the course of adopting the Opposition's amendments. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.22) —I wish to refer to the non-list process. I listened very carefully to the comments made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and wish to draw further matters to his attention. It does seem to me that the process of extradition draws back to Australia criminals who have committed offences in Australia, or other countries take back to their soil people who have committed offences there and who have been detected or apprehended in Australia. The list process that is contained in the current legislation lists a series of offences for which the extradition process may be triggered. That process, once triggered, is then executed by the Attorney-General by the issue of a warrant of apprehension, a warrant of commitment or other similar process. If the Attorney issues a warrant of apprehension, it involves the bringing back to Australia of somebody who has committed an offence in another land but who has a record within Australia that makes us want to have him returned. The Attorney-General has dispensed with the list process which in the current legislation gives details of those offences for which we can draw people back to Australia-and they are written into the treaties of agreement-or for which people can extract from Australia criminals or people who have committed offences. I wish to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General some of the difficulties I see in regard to the non-list process, which provides that an offence which carries a penalty of 12 months imprisonment is the minimum for which that extradition process can be triggered. It seems to me that it is possible for a known and notorious Australian criminal to drive in Britain, Ireland or the United States and knock down somebody on a pedestrian crossing. At that stage he may be undetected by Australian authorities. They may not know where he is or what he is doing. He may have committed an offence under the law of Britain or the United States and therefore he must stand trial. At that point the Australian authorities become aware of the identity of this individual. But, because the offence committed in that foreign country is not sufficient to trigger the extradition process, that person is let go, or the extradition process cannot commence. Does that also apply in Australia? In reading the list, one sees that there are quite insignificant offences which can trigger the extradition process. I refer to Schedule 1, items 22 and 23, which refer to offences such as stealing, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, and obtaining property, money, valuables, securities or credit by false pretences. Many of these offences, I believe, would not draw any type of penalty of the magnitude of 12 months imprisonment. Therefore, if that process is changed and an offence involving 12 months imprisonment becomes the minimum, where does Australia stand in regard to drawing back criminals and where does the country with which we have negotiated the treaty stand if that is the situation within Australia? Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(5.25) —Very briefly, I amplify the point that was being made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). It is said that under the new process we will generally be dealing with revenue crimes and also crimes which carry either the death penalty or a term of imprisonment for not less than 12 months. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), with some force, I think, says: 'Well, you should not be pre-occupied with trivial offences'. The point that I wish to make is this: Is it not the case that in the first place there are offences for which future Crown authorities may wish to extradite or in regard to which other people may well be, or should be, subject to extradition where the penalty is less than 12 months imprisonment? In other words, should there not be an arrangement under which one could extradite a person who has committed an offence which might be regarded as a serious offence, but which nevertheless does carry a penalty of less than 12 months imprisonment? There are also offences, as I think one of my colleagues has indicated, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which carry a penalty of less than 12 months imprisonment. Although it does not instantly spring to mind as an obvious case for extradition to return some person from overseas to stand trial for that offence, nevertheless, some of our friends in the trade union movement might want to get them back to get their hands on them. Mr Robert Brown —You would bring them back. Mr N. A. BROWN —You will bring them back, will you? Mr Robert Brown —No, you would bring them back. Mr Lionel Bowen —What about the employer? Mr N. A. BROWN —It is a fact that there are offences which carry penalties of less than 12 months imprisonment. We say: What is the answer to the question? Why should they not be subject to extradition? We know that the Attorney-General says that we should not be concerned with trivial offences; and we concede that point. But are there not offences of such significance and such seriousness that they do warrant extradition but which, nevertheless, carry a penalty of 12 months imprisonment? All we are asking, irrespective of what is contained in the present Act, is: What is the answer to the question? Why should they not be subject to extradition? The second point is this: Is it not the case that this Parliament could legislate tomorrow to create a new offence which carries a penalty of less than 12 months imprisonment or could not a foreign parliament or a foreign government legislate to create an offence which carries a penalty of less than 12 months imprisonment which we might regard as not being trivial, but which we might regard as being worthy of putting through the extradition process? Why should not a person who commits that new offence be subject to extradition, despite the fact that the penalty is less than 12 months imprisonment? That is one of the points that we are putting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.28) —I accept what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said and I accept his amendments. I think that they add to the protection of the subject by having a court, a magistrate, determine whether the offence is of a political character. Therefore, I do not see any problem with the matter. Of course, if the magistrate was in error, I or my equivalent, whoever that may be, would have discretion to overrule that position. So it is an additional protection and it is already contained on the British statute book. I think it could well be contained in this legislation. I thank the honourable member for that contribution. I have had a signal from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) that he does not wish to pursue the matter to which he referred because he is satisfied with the presentation made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). So I need not waste too much time on that point. In answer to the honourable member for Menzies-I suppose that I will not convince him-the issue is, of course, that there has never been extradition for any offence which carries a penalty of less than 12 months imprisonment. Mr N. A. Brown —You are a secret conservative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not a secret conservative. I should perhaps be more radical, but the honourable member would only get more upset. I remind the honourable member that it is in the existing law, and has been there all the time-it is the international arrangement, as I understand it-that an extraditable offence is an offence wherever committed against a law in force in Australia, or in part of Australia, the maximum penalty for which is death or imprisonment for a period of not less than 12 months. I am advised that that is the existing arrangement. I am doing nothing new. If we can think of some reasons to change this and, if we can get the international community to agree, we might have some hope. I appreciate the honourable member's flexible approach on this matter. I have some amendments which I will move later. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(5.31) —It is a great pity that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) was not in the House-in fact, he is not listening now-to hear the substantive debate on the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill when the matters of the removal- Mr Cadman —How do you know that I did not hear it? Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member would not have asked such a silly question if he had heard it. The honourable member in fact would have heard the reasons why- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for McEwen will continue with his debate on the Bill and ignore interjections. Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member would in fact have heard why the list of specific offences has been removed. The reason is very simple. There is a difficult distinction in comparative law between common law countries and non-common law countries in describing offences which are in substance identical but which in descriptive form are not identical. That comes into line with the Commonwealth convention in Sri Lanka and the European convention on extradition where those matters were raised. In fact, it is complying with the international trend towards such a description. If the honourable member for Mitchell does listen to the debate he may find such explanations given to him. So far as the remark of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is concerned in regard to the penalty question, I must say that those who practise in criminal law, either State or Federal, will be well challenged to find any offence which is punishable by less than 12 months imprisonment or by fine or by both. I suggest that the honourable member would be very hard put indeed to find an offence which does not carry a minimum of 12 months imprisonment. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of any offence with which I am familiar in State criminal law jurisdiction with a penalty that does not exceed 12 months imprisonment. I cannot see any harm at all in having a limitation so that in fact the Commonwealth Government, which carries the cost of much of these extradition proceedings, is not put to a great deal of expense for what is, at best, an extremely trivial offence. I think that answers those two particular questions. Amendments agreed to. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.33) —I move: Clause 12, page 10, line 35, omit 'shall', insert 'may'. This is an amendment to a printer's error in the Bill. I need to have a discretion and not be subject to mandatory obligations, which the world 'shall' implies. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.35) —by leave-The amendments which I propose to the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill are the same as the amendments which I moved to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. I believe these amendments are on all fours and are intended to be on all fours with the amendments in the previous Bill. There is nothing further that I should say on them because everything that needs to be said has been said in relation to the other Bill. I therefore move: (1) Clause 5, page 3, line 16, omit paragraph (a), substitute the following paragraph: ''(a) by adding at the end of sub-section (1) 'or if the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character';''. (2) Clause 6, page 4, line 11, at the end of proposed paragraph 15 (2) (b) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. (3) Clause 10, page 9, line 17, at the end of proposed paragraph 18 (2) (d) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. (4) Clause 10, page 9, line 43, at the end of proposed paragraph 18 (2B) (d) add: ''or that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character''. Amendments agreed to. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.36) —by leave-I am in the same position in regard to the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill as I was in regard to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill. On that basis I move: Clause 10, page 9, line 11, omit 'shall', insert 'may'. Clause 10, page 9, line 36, omit 'shall', insert 'may'. These amendments concern printer's errors in the Bill. Accordingly, I need to retain my discretion, which can be retained only by having the word 'may' instead of the word 'shall'. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Hayden: That this Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.39) —The Opposition supports the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill. The reasons which ordinarily I would advance will, in the interests of time, be advanced by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I make one observation, which I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) will respond to at the end of the debate, concerning a widespread public concern about the use to which Australian foreign aid is put, whether it is bilateral aid or multilateral aid through agencies such as that which is the subject of this Bill. Of course, the bilateral aid question is addressed in the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. That Committee report is now being processed by a joint House all-party committee of this Parliament. It will be a matter for debate in this Parliament later in the year. In respect of grants to the International Development Agency or any other multilateral organisation, even though they are praised in the Jackson report as being efficient and even though their programs over the years have been effective, I believe that because of the level of disquiet now being expressed in Australia, the Minister owes it to the Australian taxpayer to make a report on the nature of projects which benefit under the grants which are the subject of this Bill. I am not suggesting that the Australian money should be traced as it goes into projects, but I am suggesting that the kinds of projects which will be the subject of long term interest-free loans as a result of grants of this character by Australia to the World Bank be reported upon. I illustrate the argument by reference to Ethiopia. The fact is that potentially Ethiopia can support its large population. With the right economic and technical policies, it undoubtedly could support its population rather than suffer, as is now happening, the most tragic results of a famine. The famine, according to all objective observers, is as much as anything government-induced. It is important that if we are to go on meeting, as we must, short term food and other aid requirements of those who are the victims of that famine and therefore of that economic mismanagement, the Australian public, knowing that the transportation costs alone are massive even once the aid gets to Ethiopia, is entitled to be informed that, concurrent with that short term aid, projects which are capable of leading to a self-sustaining economy are being undertaken with aid money such as that which is the subject of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at that suggestion and undertake to report to the Parliament in one form or another, perhaps in the context of the overall foreign aid debate that must ensue from the Government's ultimate action on the recommendations of the Jackson report. It is important that Australians understand where aid of this character, as well as short term food aid, is going. In the interest of saving time in this debate, as there is no contest between the Opposition and the Government, I am simply content to identify myself with the reasons advanced by the honourable member for Mayo when his turn comes to participate in the debate. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(5.44) — The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1985 is designed to make it possible for Australia to allocate, in addition to the $200m which we provided following agreement to do so last year in the seventh replenishment of the Association, an additional voluntary contribution of $60m towards the resources of that Association. A whole range of agencies, arrangements and authorities exist throughout the world and are designed, at least in part, to provide the machinery through which assistance can be channelled from those countries which enjoy a relatively high gross domestic product to those developing countries which are in need of various kinds of assistance. The International Development Association is the concessional lending agency of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-more generally known as the World Bank. The Association began operation in November 1960. Its assistance is particularly aimed at the poorer developing countries among its over 130 members. In 1980 terms-I am sorry to say that I do not have more recent figures in this context-the purpose of the Association was to assist those countries whose per capita income was less than $US750. The significance of that amount becomes apparent when one realises that in 1980, expressed in the same monetary terms, the world average for gross domestic product per capita was $US2,600, and for the developed countries the average was $US8,500. I emphasise that this particular Association accepts the responsibility of assisting those countries whose per capita income in United States dollars in 1980 terms was only $US750. The significance of that should not be lost to honourable members or to the Australian community. Perhaps more than any other agency which exists in the world the International Development Association is concerned with directing assistance to those parts of the world and those communities and countries where assistance clearly is most needed. The terms under which that assistance is made available are much more favourable than the terms under which the assistance is made available to other countries from the World Bank itself. In the first place the Association provides loans for a longer period. In general, the period is up to 50 years, with an additional 10 years grace which is allowed for the maturing of those loans. Furthermore, the loans are interest-free. The resources of the International Development Association come mainly from the subscriptions of the industrialised countries which pledge periodic general replenishments. This legislation provides for a supplement to the $200m which Australia provided as a result of legislation passed last year towards the seventh replenishment of the Association since it began operations in late 1960. The sixth replenishment-that is the main means by which the Association obtains funds-covering the years 1981 to 1983 was $12,000m. That money came from all the developed countries from in excess of 130 countries that make up the total membership of the Association. The most recent replenishment, the seventh-this gives the background to the reason why Australia has agreed to make this voluntary supplementary grant available-was designed to cover commitments during the period 1985 to 1987. That sum was to be only $9,000m. That was a major reduction not only in monetary terms but in real terms. That $9,000m limit was brought about through the reluctance of the United States of America to increase the volume of its contribution. If the developed country members of the Association had maintained in real terms the value of the previous replenishment, we would have been providing not $9,000m but $15,000m. Therefore, there has been a significant reduction in the type of funds necessary on the part of organisations of that kind to fulfil the important responsibilities with which they have been charged by the world community. Dr Harry Edwards —That is by all of us. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, by all of us collectively. That undertaking has been accepted by the world community, including Australia. Although some concerns have been expressed about the place of Australia and the volume of its support, I stress that we are one of the better countries of the world in terms of the type and volume of assistance per head that we make available. With some significant reservations, we can be quite proud of the type and nature of the contribution we make to our responsibilities under those arrangements. As a result of the reduced real value of the contribution, Australia and a number of other countries became concerned about the impact, the effect, that that reduced replenishment would have. In the light of the urgent needs of the recipient countries, countries which benefit from the funds of the Association, Australia decided to supplement the assistance it was providing. As I have said, this legislation provides for $60m in addition to the $200m we authorised last year. There were two ways in which we could have provided the additional assistance. The first was through a multilateral funding facility which has recently been established to assist sub-Saharan Africa. If we had made that money available through that facility, it would have meant quite clearly that the additional funds we were providing would have been restricted to that area. Of course, that is a very deserving area. We are familiar with some of the very serious and growing disabilities that the millions of people in that sub-Saharan region are experiencing at present. We preferred, however, to make the funds available in an untied way to the general resources of the Association. In that way some funds will go to the sub-Saharan region and the additional funds will assist in providing aid to some of those deprived areas closer to Australia and within our own region. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) during his second reading speech said: The impoverished countries of the world depend upon IDA for development assistance on concessional terms. He went on to say: 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 believe, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs quite clearly believes, that the way in which we have made this special assistance available is the most appropriate. Evidence of the concentration of IDA assistance on the poorest countries is provided in the following information: In the year to 30 June 1982, for example, 90 per cent of IDA funds went to countries with a per capita gross national product of less than $410. It is hard, in fact it is almost impossible, for people in Australia to comprehend the significance of a per capita income of $410. I will give figures later on to indicate that per capita income falls significantly below the figure in many of the most impoverished countries for many of the most impoverished people in the world. In the year to June 1982 the IDA contribution supported 97 projects in 42 different countries. During that same period, when the disbursements represented just over $2,000m, the largest proportion, which went to assist agricultural projects, accounted for 44 per cent of the total disbursements. Power projects took 20 per cent, transport projects took 10 per cent and education projects took 5 per cent. So it is quite clear that the funds of the IDA are being directed towards the most important types of projects within those underdeveloped countries. In recent years we have become aware of the growing burden of the foreign debt of developing countries. For example, since 1970 the total outstanding debt for the Third World-the underdeveloped or developing countries of the world-went from $70 billion to $600 billion. The debt servicing costs for those countries as a percentage of their gross domestic product went from 2 per cent to over 5 per cent. This occurred in a period of marginally in excess of 10 years. Those countries' debt servicing costs as a percentage of their exports went from 13 per cent to over 20 per cent. The Third World debtor countries, having incurred an increasing debt of that kind, must now provide in excess of 20 per cent of their total exports just to meet their interest burden-the servicing costs of their debts. So the extent to which their exports can be made available to make it possible for them to import the types of capital equipment they need, the additional consumer goods they need, is significantly reduced. In Australia we talk of having almost three million people living in poverty. It should cause deep concern to all Australians that, in a comparative sense, one in every five Australians lives in poverty. But it is a comparative sense. When talking about almost three million people living in poverty in Australia, we are talking in terms of them living in poverty in relation to other Australians. It is not and cannot be an objective assessment of poverty in comparison with people who live in real, grinding poverty in so many parts of the world. If we were to take a deprived and seriously underprivileged family from one of our communities in Australia and suddenly transport that family, with all of the services, the facilities and the limited assets and spending power available to it, to a village in India, those people would be the richest people in the village. In the first place, they would have clear, clean, laid-on water. They would have power. In general, they would have- Dr Harry Edwards —Education. Mr ROBERT BROWN —They would have compulsory education. They would have access to top class health facilities. They would have access to doctors. They would have reasonable accommodation. Possibly-most likely-they would have a television set, even if it was just black and white. They would possibly have a motor car and household furniture. When we are talking about objective poverty throughout the world, we are talking about people who have none of those things, people who are lucky to have a rag on their backs. We talk in terms of the global village, the contracting globe. We are not prepared to tolerate, as we should not tolerate, our neighbours living in the type of poverty to which I have referred. When we talk about the global village we refer to the speed with which we can move from one place in the world to another and we should remember that those people about whom I have been speaking are not very far away. We could leave Australia now and within 21 hours be in Ethiopia, where people are starving. It no longer takes months to get to these places. That is how close they are. Of course, Ethiopia is around the other side of the world. There are other places much closer to us where people are in similar circumstances, and it takes us much less time to get there. These places are not divorced from us. They are very close to us. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the limited time that is available to me, I do not wish to give the impression that I do not believe that countries in this world are justified in undertaking defence expenditure. I just wish to put it into perspective. I want to relate poverty to defence expenditure, because I know that there are increasing numbers of people throughout the world who are concerned about the massive volumes of money and resources that are being applied to military budgets when the sort of poverty to which I have been referring still exists. For example, world military expenditure in 1981 represented almost $600 billion-$600,000m. That represented 5 per cent of the world's gross domestic product. At the same time the world provided only $36 billion in aid to countries. That is 0.3 per cent of the world's gross domestic product. Of the 4.5 billion people on earth, one billion-1,000 million of them-belong to developed countries. The vast majority, the other three-quarters, of the world's people belong to what we call developing countries, although some of them are developing very, very slowly. Of that 3,500 million people there are 450 million to 500 million people who at this very moment are starving. I am not talking about people going without a meal; I am talking about people who are starving and who have no opportunity at all of being provided with the type of food that we might expect. I said that the per capita income of those developed countries was $US8,500 per year. For the developing countries it is about $800. I said that I would give some examples of some of those countries where it is significantly less. Is it possible for anyone in Australia who has not been to these places to understand and comprehend the significance of the plight of people in a country like Laos where the per capita income per year is $87? Mr Slipper —It is a communist country. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is not even $2 a week. An honourable member has just stated that Laos is a communist country. That is a rather foolish type of interjection to make. Bangladesh has a per capita annual income of $129. Chad has a per capita annual income of $113. Australia has an annual per capita income of $10,000. As a result of this legislation we are making available $60m to assist those people. The significance of all these things can be compounded time after time. I said that world military expenditure at present is $600,000m every year. The world spends $1.6 billion every day. We spend $1.2m every minute. I conclude by making the point that every minute 30 children die for the want of food and for the want of inexpensive vaccines. During the 20 minutes that I have been speaking the world will have spent $24m on military purposes and 600 children in the world will have died. Six hundred children died in the 20 minutes before I commenced speaking and 600 children will die during the next 20 minutes. Six hundred children will have died for the want of food and for the want of those cheap vaccines. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.04) —The International Development Association was created just over 24 years ago to fill a void in the dealings of the World Bank with the lowest income level, lesser developed countries. The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill intends to top up Australia's seventh increment of $200m by a further $60m. Each three years the subscriber countries, of which Australia is one, replenish the Association's funds. This year's and last year's contribution will go towards coping with the needs of the IDA over the three-year period commencing 1 July 1984. Although Australia has been a donor country since the inception of the Association, the Bill involves one of those items of expenditure which has escaped close examination and debate. That is probably because the enabling legislation only comes before the Parliament every three years. It is to be regretted that expenditure of $260m of taxpayers' money over the next three years, which in reality is part of our overseas aid program, does not seem to have warranted the close scrutiny of the Parliament. That regret is only partly based on the fact that Australia is a major contributor by world standards. In the financial year to 30 June 1984 Australia was about the eleventh most generous country, despite having something like the fifteenth or sixteenth highest living standard in the world. It is important to note that until quite recently the United States was the major contributor to IDA and its affiliated bodies. However, Congress has lately reduced the United States degree of participation for reasons which cannot be entirely ignored. Without making value judgments on the reticence of the United States Congress, it may be useful to go over some details which might balance what is, after all, an almost unquestioning Australian commitment to our role in IDA. In effect, IDA is the 'soft loan' window of the World Bank. As far as can be ascertained, it extends interest free credits for up to 50 years with a 10-year repayment grace period. The only additional cost to a recipient nation is an annual 0.75 per cent service charge on the principal. The IDA may be distinguished from another affiliate, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, for reasons which invite special attention. Unlike the IDA, the IBRD borrows on the private capital market and charges near commercial interest rates to borrowers. On the other hand, IDA credits are funded by taxpayer contributions from the donor countries, including Australia. There are about 131 member countries of the IDA, the majority of which are recipients, the remainder being donor countries which make its work possible. The IDA, as a branch of the World Bank group, in 1973 made a commitment to what were then described as 'new style' projects. The IDA, as an affiliate of the World Bank, was given the onus for meeting this then new objective of increasing assistance with a view to solving the basic human needs of the lesser developed countries. However, there is a body of opinion in the United States and elsewhere which seriously questions whether attainment of that stated goal is now likely. An examination of the lending habits of IDA would seem to indicate that there are more questions than answers. There is certainly little in the second reading speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) or the explanatory memorandum which would give rise to legitimate questioning and debate. Nevertheless, that should be done, not with a partisan political objective in mind, if only because successive governments of both persuasions have co-operated in maintaining Australia's contribution over the past 24 years. An examination of readily accessible information-there is not exactly a surfeit of it, I can assure honourable members-indicates that the main beneficiary of the IDA, and therefore Australia's contribution, is in fact India. India appears to have had the lion's share over at least a decade and probably longer. Naturally, no one denies that India is one of the world's less developed countries in many respects. However, in some ways it is not. It is not numbered amongst the least developed countries. Indeed, it must be one of the wealthiest LDCs, if that is not a contradiction to so describe it. Look at some of the national achievements of India. It has developed and tested nuclear weapons, unlike any of its near neighbours, with the exception of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. India and China are the only LDCs to have a known capacity to make nuclear weapons. India has one of the biggest and best equipped military forces in its region, having purchased most of its arsenal and impressive military hardware from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. India continues to enter into ongoing arms purchase agreements with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a scale which Australia cannot hope to match, be it with the Soviet Union or any other supplier. India has a space program which progressive Australians can only dream about, particularly the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who was so savagely rebuffed by his own Hawke socialist Government in its last Budget. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! He was mauled. Mr ROCHER —He was mauled, indeed. India is a major competitor of Australia in trade in some raw materials. In this context it should be remembered that much of the wealth created in Australia is generated by our extractive mining industry, which in turn enables us to embark on programs of foreign aid. If the significance of that has not dawned upon honourable members it is to be hoped that it will. Despite what are commendable technological, military and limited but significant commercial achievements, in many ways superior to our own, India lacks the ability, it seems, to resolve and successfully tackle its basic human needs requirements. It is one of the most populous poverty stricken nations on earth. Hence it qualifies to receive concessional, to the extent that they are long term and interest free, loans from IDA. Remembering Australia's not ungenerous contribution to IDA over 24 years, or 27 years after the passage of last year's Bill, it might be said that we finance a country which in some ways and in some areas has achieved more than we can possibly hope to achieve in the foreseeable future. While no one could properly suggest that funds from IDA will find their way into these technological or military spending programs, equally no one could deny that such financing allows India the flexibility to order its spending priorities in a way which would be otherwise impossible. In other words, IDA loans indirectly but undeniably allow that country to do things which many may judge not to be in the best interests of either Australia or the poverty stricken masses in India we set out to help. We are, through this measure and other aid programs, indirectly financing India to develop its nuclear capacity, both military and peaceful. Australia is indirectly financing that country's rocketry and space satellite program. We are financing a massive military machine as well as the purchase of sophisticated weapons from the USSR. We are financing resources projects which will sell in direct competition with our own minerals. All that is very generous but arguably it is unwise. Dr Harry Edwards —That is the utter frustration of it all. Mr ROCHER —It is frustrating. India is the example I have chosen-because it offers almost a full range of activities and programs-to illustrate the need for questioning. Nevertheless, there are many other beneficiaries which would also merit close examination for similar, if not identical, reasons. Many other LDCs have so ordered their priorities as to leave food production, housing and poverty relief well down the list, behind military expansion and nationalistic edifices. We all know of countries in the Horn of Africa, in the sub-Sahara region, indeed in the entire African continent, with armed forces of a magnitude and a standard not commensurate with their needs while, at the same time, their populations are denied more than a meagre existence. We also know of lesser developed countries which sell coal, iron ore and alumina at uneconomical prices-sometimes below the cost of production-because of an ever-increasing need for foreign currency. They sell in markets where cost efficient unsubsidised Australian producers have established, or seek to establish, a presence. The need for foreign exchange is often an overriding consideration and, in turn, is often due to a need to service both soft and hard foreign loans. Generally, there is something of a vicious circle which too often has little beneficial effect on the masses living in many LDCs. One study of the International Development Association's lending program for its fiscal year 1979 seemed to highlight the need for critical concern by contributor countries such as Australia. It showed that approximately 33 per cent of IDA credits were for the purpose of agricultural and rural development, as should reasonably be expected. The chastening statistic over that admittedly limited sampling period was, however, one which showed that only a little over one per cent was allocated for population control and nutrition. At the same time, 17 per cent was to be spent on transportation, and a further 13 per cent on so-called non-projects which often provided foreign exchange for imported technology of doubtful value. It seems also that IDA credits are too widely dispersed in various economic sectors. The poorest LDCs continue to suffer from disproportionate overpopulation, malnutrition and starvation. Those three conditions require concentrated attention and will not be ameliorated merely in the light of plans for industrial progress or a professed need for technology of doubtful immediate importance or benefit. Because Australia's voting rights in IDA are only marginally significant, it is unable to significantly influence IDA's credit allocation procedure. That procedure often produces allocations which we would not condone if our contribution were part of our direct foreign aid program. It must be at least doubtful that foreign aid channelled through a body such as IDA-over which we can exercise little control-is the best way of going about helping the poorest of developing member countries. For instance, we cannot stop IDA extending credits to Vietnam as it did a few years ago, even if as a nation we were of the opinion that such aid would only enhance that recipient country's ability to invade and occupy Kampuchea. Without debating the merits of Vietnam's invasion and occupation of its neighbour, it should be understood that Australia's views would be likely to be disregarded, despite our assessment of our own national interest. If all the $260m now pledged remained as part of our discretionary aid appropriation over the next three years, there is little doubt that our own national interest and the values of the government of the day would be taken into account when decisions on how these taxpayers' aid dollars were to be allocated. As with many of the agencies established by the United Nations Organisation, the IDA's relevance has been only very recently seriously questioned. It has its own bureaucracy. Its deputies meet regularly in the capitals of Europe and North America but rarely, it seems, in the countries of its poorest members. That may not be significant, but the unquestioned existence and role of IDA must not be condoned. The basic premise that so-called soft loans are more beneficial to donor and recipient alike than are the alternatives of hard loans or even outright grants should be constantly under the microscope. In an article entitled 'Rethinking the Multilateral Development Banks' Professor Wilson Schmidt had this to say: When the yield on investments in the recipient country exceeds that in the benefactor, both are better off with a hard loan because it is possible to set an interest rate between the two yields such that both parties gain. He went on to generalise: Paradoxical as it may seem, it is in fact cheaper to give the money away than lend it when the yield on investment in the recipient is below that in the benefactor. In terms of IDA loans, any yields in recipient countries must certainly exceed that in the benefactor, when the benefactor is Australia and its contributions take the form of grants. We do not even get the kudos and accompanying national advantage which should accrue from unilateral or bilateral aid granted directly and not under the IDA or World Bank umbrella. The report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program has not yet come under close scrutiny in this Parliament; nor have its views and recommendations been acted upon by the Government. Nevertheless, it makes references relevant to the nature of our overseas aid, as well as going into a great deal of detail. While noting considerable improvement over the past decade, the Jackson report also observed that the ad hoc nature of it has persisted in many respects. It is not possible, of course, to deny that money Australia and other donor nations provide to IDA finds its way into the most impoverished nations, as intended. It may even help us garner enough votes to get Australia a seat in the United Nations Security Council. Nevertheless, whatever the real or perceived advantages for Australia, there must be some downside as well. Although these downsides may have been mentioned by other honourable members tonight, they certainly were not in the Minister's second reading speech. The report of the Jackson Committee does, however, make distinctions between bilateral and multilateral aid directly given or granted. Unfortunately, it does not quantitatively deal with aspects of aid of the type envisaged in this Bill or possibly because of this Bill. The proposed contributions to IDA might be described as unilateral aid rendered indirectly-I repeat, 'indirectly'-to distinguish it from aid given directly, albeit either in the form of bilateral or multilateral aid. The Jackson Committee does make one observation which, if read in isolation, might give an impression that we act in accordance with Professor Schmidt's implied preferred position in suggesting that it is cheaper to give the money away rather than lend it when the yield on the investment in the recipient country is below that in the benefactor country or vice versa. Remember that the benefactor is Australia in this context. The Committee report also says: In recent years Australia has given all its aid on grant terms. It is important to stress that it should not be assumed by anyone that this Bill will result in aid eventually being delivered on grant terms and certainly not on Australia's terms, grant or otherwise. It is equally clear that this contribution is aid and is more importantly part of our foreign aid, regardless of any claims to the contrary. In the absence of sufficient information, it may be enough, given our earlier pledges to IDA which the Bill merely validates, to flag such questions as matters of importance. Perhaps consideration of the Jackson Committee report and the subsequent revision of our total aid program will quell any existing doubts. For humanitarian, commercial and national reasons, those doubts should be eliminated, and eliminated quickly. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.22) —The International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1985 authorises an additional contribution of $A60m to the available assets of the International Development Association or, as it is more widely known, IDA. The Australian Government has decided to make a voluntary and unilateral contribution of $A60m in addition to Australia's share totalling $A200m to the Association's seventh replenishment of the resources of IDA covering the period 1985-87. Legislation authorising the contribution by Australia of $A200m towards the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association is contained in the International Development Association (Further Payment) Act 1984. A significant proportion of Australia's multilateral aid is channelled through international finance institutions. These institutions include the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, their respective concessional lending affiliates and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Australia is a member of the World Bank group, comprising the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which lends to its developing member countries on better than commercial terms, the International Development Association, which lends on highly concessional terms to the poorest developing countries, and the International Finance Corporation, which was set up to promote the growth of productive private enterprise in its developing member countries. As has been pointed out by a number of speakers in this debate, the International Development Association was established over 20 years ago to provide concessional assistance to low income countries. Its origins lay in the recognition that, for many of the poorest countries, private capital and existing aid arrangements were not adequate. The World Bank, which had led to multilateral aid effort after World War II, claimed that it could not lend to the poorest countries without damaging its own credit position in international capital markets. Furthermore, the low income countries could ill afford to take on loans carrying high interest rates and short maturities to finance projects with long payback periods and earning little or no foreign exchange. Donor governments agreed to the establishment of IDA because, in its affiliation with the World Bank, they saw an assurance that concessional loans would be used to finance bank-type projects. The resources of the International Development Association come mainly from subscriptions by industrialised countries, pledged in periodic large replenishments and supplemented by transfers of net earnings through the World Bank. As the International Development Association has grown, so has the number of its donors. The initial subscription involved 17 industrial countries. Today the number of donors has nearly doubled and the list of donors includes a number of developing countries. The size of the seventh replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association has been agreed by donors at $US9 billion. This represents a decline of $US3 billion which was provided under the sixth replenishment. Most donors, including Australia, view the $US9 billion target as gravely inadequate having regard to the pressing needs of the poorest countries for development assistance. It is believed that this will result in the level of concessional lending to the world's poorest countries being significantly reduced. Recognising a clear need for additional resources, most donors felt that the Association's management should make further efforts to arrange supplementary financing for the fiscal 1985-87 period. Accordingly, at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank annual meetings in Washington last year, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Australian Government would further respond to the needs of IDA recipients by making a voluntary and unilateral special contribution to IDA. The Federal Government decided to make a unilateral and voluntary additional contribution of $A60m. This voluntary contribution does not become part of Australia's formal share in the International Development Association and is not a precedent for future burden sharing. The announcement of Australia's contribution was well received by the World Bank. The President of the World Bank was reported as having said: We are deeply grateful to the Government of Australia for its generous response to the overwhelming problems faced by the poorest countries, especially in the sub-Sahara and Africa. Australia's announced intention to make a voluntary and unilateral special contribution to IDA over and above the amounts already pledged to the seventh IDA replenishment is a very heartwarming gesture. There are a number of important reasons why the additional contribution of $A60m to the resources of the International Development Association is required. First, it makes known Australia's concern at the inadequacy of the seventh replenishment. It will help to maintain Australia's overall measure of aid to the poorest countries, particularly as the additional funds will enable the International Development Association to extend its essential work as a concessional lender to all poor countries, including those in our region, rather than in a specific region of the world. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr LINDSAY —The International Development Association is a highly efficient and effective channel for disbursing major amounts of multilateral assistance to promote self-sustaining development in the poorest countries. Eligible countries for International Development Association assistance are those with an average per capita income of $US805 per annum or less. The majority of International Development Association resources go to countries whose gross national product per capita is less than $US400 per annum. In comparison, it is significant to observe that the Australian average weekly earnings for male employees for the December quarter 1984 was $390.70. International Development Association loans are interest free and can be repaid over 50 years with a 10-year grace period. Loans from the International Development Association are made to the poorest countries, which have a great need for development assistance. These countries are not normally able to obtain commercial or ordinary loans as the majority of them are not credit worthy. Beneficiaries of assistance from the International Development Association have made real progress. Their per capita incomes have grown. Literacy and life expectancy have increased. Per capita income is only one of several criteria which have determined the allocation of International Development Association loans. Other criteria include a country's lack of credit-worthiness and access to commercial borrowing, its economic performance, population, and the availability of projects. The International Development Association at its inception concentrated on infrastructure projects; for example, transportation, power and ports. In the late 1960s food shortages in many countries prompted the International Development Association to have a greater involvement in the development of agriculture. Rural development projects have also been undertaken which are designed to raise the productivity of small farmers as a method of reducing absolute poverty and increasing total agricultural output. Much of the International Development Association's lending has helped to boost agricultural products in South Asia, spreading the techniques of the green revolution. As a result of those achievements India is now able to meet its own food needs for the first time in decades. The International Development Association has increasingly been concerned with urban poverty and employment programs. It has pioneered programs to find affordable solutions to urban shelter problems. Industrial lending has favoured small and medium sized firms as a way of increasing employment. Water supply projects have increasingly stressed simpler systems. All these changes are part of an effort to reach the poorest people within poor countries and to design projects that will benefit them directly. Experience has shown that raising the productivity of the poor means more than providing them with productive assets. It also means increasing their skills and strength through education, health programs and other services. IDA's education lending, for example, has given increased emphasis to primary schooling, as well as vocational and technical training. Through the International Development Association, Australian aid is able to reach the poorest countries outside our region without incurring expensive bilateral aid overheads. Australia does not have the necessary infrastructure in many of the recipient countries to ensure that bilateral aid is used efficiently. Unquestionably, the International Development Association has a proven record of efficiency and effectiveness in administering its aid programs. The facilities of the Association also enable Australia to complement limited bilateral aid to large countries such as India. The World Bank is better placed than Australia to finance large scale projects and to develop and strengthen infrastructure within the recipient countries. Australian external aid has increased from roughly $A700m per annum when this Government came to office to the present level of $A1,200m. This development has been in response to a variety of impulses. It has been an expression of humanitarian concern for the underprivileged. It has been an important element in foreign policy in that aid is a manifestation of our good will and our wish to foster mutually beneficial relations with the world around us. To be candid, our aid also has considerable commercial benefits for us. So Australia's aid program is a crucial element in our policy both as a trading nation in the Eastern Hemisphere and as a democratic country. That is why our aid contribution is equal to 0.5 per cent of national income, which puts us into the top half of the group of industrially developed nations who are the major aid donors. The federal Government's target is 0.7 per cent, in line with the recommendation of the United Nations, and it is the policy of the Hawke Government-an authentic Australian Government-to reach this target as soon as possible. It is determined to pursue this policy, even against the opposition of some people who think that money can be better spent at home, for a most important reason. The grinding poverty of hundreds of millions of people around the world is an agony which is incomprehensible to us lucky Australians. We could shut our eyes to it, concentrate on our own fortunate lifestyle and standard, but as decent people we are refusing to do this. In any case, it would be dangerous if we did. We cannot expect millions of hungry poor people to remain satisfied with their lot. The growth of expectations as a result of improved communications makes that impossible. I conclude with the eloquent words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), and I believe that these sentiments reflect a majority view of millions of Australians: I support the passion and commitment of those who believe that the massive poverty of millions of our fellow men and women is an abiding stain. But I also believe that the problems of poverty must be approached with generous sentiment, rather than easy sentimentality. They will not be solved just by good intentions, but by rational analysis and careful planning. This Bill represents an expression of rational analysis and careful planning by a government-the Hawke Government-devoted to national recovery, national reconstruction and national reconciliation. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(8.09) —We are all aware of the need to help others, and the intentions of the proponents of the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill are laudable. I am, however, opposed to an open cheque book policy. I would like to see aid provided in a different form. As people elected to this place we have a heavy responsibility to spend the Australian tax dollar wisely. There has been a growing realisation among certain elements of the Australian community that Australia's overseas aid-referred to as official development assistance-should place a greater emphasis than it currently does on commercial interests. Such a realisation formed many of the submissions to the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, notably those of the Department of Trade, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Wheat Board and the National Farmers Federation. Aid programs should perform a dual function. Not only should they encourage economic development in the recipient countries but also they should provide the maximum possible economic benefits to donor countries. These objectives are, in fact, mutually reinforcing. The argument is not that commercial and trade interests should be promoted at the expense of either the economic development of the recipient countries or the humanitarian considerations underlying the aid program; rather, I believe that the aid program must reflect a proper balance between the economic needs of the recipient countries and the economic interests of the donor countries. The current Australian official development assistance does not reflect such a balance and the aid program fails to meet the legitimate interests of Australian manufacturers and primary producers. Indeed, there is a widespread concern that Australia's aid policies appear to be developed in a vacuum without adequate consideration of the wider interests, such as the commercial interests, of the Australian community. In my opinion there are five main reasons why the Australian aid program should be tied to the provision of Australian goods and services. A direct linking of aid with commercial interests would help to expand manufacturing production and to revitalise Australia's economic performance. Such a linkage takes on an added significance in a period of economic recession and in the context of Australia's poor export performance over the past decade. According to figures compiled by the Department of Trade, Australia's share of world exports declined from 1.7 per cent in 1970 to 1.3 per cent in 1982. The Department has argued that this decline was due to Australia's inadequate export mix; its critical reliance on bulk, unprocessed commodities, the slowest growing sector of world trade, at the expense of manufactures and services, the fastest growing sector of world trade. This poor export record suggests that the Government should consider a variety of measures, including the use of aid, to help boost the country's export performance. The tying of aid also helps to promote full employment. According to research carried out by the Department of Trade, exports generated 11.6 per cent of total employment-736,000 jobs-in 1980-81 and it estimates that every $170m of exports in 1983-84 prices generates 5,000 jobs. Thus, if aid were used to help promote Australia's exports, it would also help to ensure the provision of more jobs. The employment generating effect of exports is a critically important consideration when 8.3 per cent of the work force or, seasonally adjusted, 630,000 people are currently unemployed as a result of the economic recession and Australian Labor Party policies. Participation in aid projects can familiarise Australian firms with business conditions in developing countries. Such a policy is actively pursued by other countries. For example, the United States of America Agency for International Development established a bureau for private enterprise in 1981 and it is estimated that AID activities and projects have generated some $US700m annually for United States firms. The tying of aid to the provision of Australian goods and services assists the balance of payments situation. Untied aid in the form of cash grants constitutes a debit item in the balance of payments. Tied aid, on the other hand, eliminates such balance of payments losses by ensuring that the aid dollar is spent on goods and services within Australia. Hence export income automatically rises to compensate for the aid payment. Finally, recipient countries might well benefit over the long term from tied aid. This argument rests on the supposition that donor countries might be prepared to offer recipient countries more under tied aid schemes than they would be willing to do under any other arrangement. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that the political elites in Third World recipient countries are uniformly opposed to tied aid. In fact, for example, in mid-1983 the then Opposition Leader in Papua New Guinea, Mr Okuk, suggested that Australia should tie more, not less, of its aid to Papua New Guinea. Most of Australia's major trading competitors, such as Japan, Canada, the European Economic Community, the United States and the United Kingdom, ensure that their aid programs carry a significant commercial orientation. Indeed, these countries regularly use aid as a form of subsidy to their export industries, notably those involved with capital goods and consultancy. Such policies reflect both a recognition of the close relationship between aid and trade flows and the importance attached to the role of private sector investment and its close links with aid. Some of these countries, indeed, use their food aid to further their commercial and foreign policy objectives. The most notable example is the United States of America where Public Law 480 (1954), which provides the legislative basis for funding food aid, was explicitly designed to expand the United States international trade and to promote the economic stability of American agriculture. Since the late 1960s the EEC has developed a food aid policy which tends to be used as a means to disembarrass itself of supplies of butter, oil commodities and powdered milk which are surplus to community requirements. Indeed, as the Australian Wheat Board concluded in its submission to the Jackson Committee, the policies of the main food aid donors merely reflect the fact that aid is just one means by which a multitude of national interest objectives are pursued. The Government should look into this aspect as a matter of top priority. Moreover, over the last few years there has been a growing recognition among these countries of the need to develop mixed commercial and aid packages in order to win development projects. Beginning with France in 1960, a total of 10 countries now provide mixed credit schemes by which an aid component is added to a financial package that supports a commercial bid, usually for capital goods, to be supplied to a developing country. Such schemes are in fact a reflection of the increased competition among trading nations in the wake of the international economic recession of the early 1980s. Although the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development prepared 'guiding principles' for these mixed aid schemes by which OECD members were required to confine mixed credits to priority development projects and to use such credits on the basis of international competitive bidding, these have proved ineffective in practice and have in fact been manipulated to suit some donors. Given this situation, Australia has been forced, albeit reluctantly, to develop its own mixed credit schemes. In 1980 the former Liberal-National Party Government introduced the development import finance facility which provides grant funds for use in concessional export credit packages to Australian business for projects that are considered to have developmental merit. The Government also operates a development import grants scheme which provides grant credits for the purchase of Australian goods and services to South Pacific countries and the poorest countries in South Asia and Africa. The provision of such schemes as DIFF and DIGS has been welcomed by Australian business and trade organisations, notably the Confederation of Australian industry, as a step in the right direction. However, it is obvious that the financial commitment to such schemes must be greatly expanded if they are going to provide any long term benefit for Australian business. For example, the total Budget allocation to the DIFF for the financial year 1984-85 amounts to $A16m. Yet the United States, in October 1984, approved a mixed credit package to help a firm compete for a single order of $US25m for locomotives to go to Botswana. The most far-reaching expansion and restructuring of the Australian mixed credit schemes has been suggested by the Department of Trade in its submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which is currently reviewing the Jackson report. I support this submission. The Department of Trade has suggested that the DIFF funds should be increased immediately to 5 per cent of the official development assistance budget and by a further 5 per cent over the next five years. According to the Department's calculations, the DIFF scheme, geared to 5 per cent of the aid vote, would provide $A50m of funding which would assist export sales of some $250m of capital goods and consultancy services, while an expansion of DIFF to 10 per cent over the next 5 years would be enough to support sales of $2,475m-about a third of the Labor Party's expected deficit in each year over this period. Moreover, the Department of Trade has also recommended that an Australian aid trade fund, on the lines of a similar Canadian scheme, be set up as an integral part of the aid program and be administered by the Department. It is proposed that such a fund would be allocated 10 per cent of the ODA budget and would fund aid-trade lines of credit, co-financing with multilateral organisations and aid-trade financing packages for bilateral development projects. Therefore, the Department has argued that at least 20 per cent of Australia's aid vote should support export promotion schemes. Mr Cobb —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his support. Given the fact that any dramatic increase in the overall level of Australian aid in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely, it is crucially important periodically to review the current mix of Australian aid among bilateral, multilateral and grant-in-aid schemes in order to ensure that it is appropriate to the needs of both the recipient countries and Australia. Two areas which, perhaps, need to be monitored fairly closely are Australia's contributions to multilateral organisations and its grant-in-aid support to the Papua New Guinea Budget. Together these commitments constitute over 52 per cent of Australia's official development assistance as opposed to 45.5 per cent for bilateral aid, excluding Budget support aid to Papua New Guinea. Australia's grant-in-aid to Papua New Guinea represents just over 30 per cent of its total ODA-about $A299m out of $A992.5m for 1984-85. Although it is recognised that Australia has, for historical reasons, a special responsibility for Papua New Guinea and that Papua New Guinea has particularly difficult development problems, it is widely admitted that it must become less reliant than it presently is on direct Australian budgetary support. It has been argued that once the present five-year agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea, which covers the Budget support grants scheme, expires in 1986 the opportunity should be taken to increase the level of funds tied to the provision of Australian goods and services. Indeed, it has been suggested that the Papua New Guinea aid tied to Australian sourcing should be as high as 80 per cent. I strongly support this principle. Australia's multilateral aid currently represents over 22 per cent of the total ODA-$A221.8m out of $A992.5m for 1984-85-and consists of contributions to international development agencies, international financial institutions-for example, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, et cetera-and United Nations agencies. However, such contributions have serious drawbacks in terms of encouraging commercial participation in Australia's aid program. In the first place, by supporting such a multilateral system, the donor country has little direct say in the disbursement of aid flows. This is one of the major problems with the Bill before the House. This basic fact is compounded in Australia's case by its relative geographic isolation from most international development agencies, which are located in either Europe or the United States of America. As a result Australia's involvement in the administration and policy formation of these organisations is not commensurate with its financial commitment. Indeed, Australian contractors and consultants generally do not obtain the level of business from such multilateral agencies that Australia's contributions might warrant. For example, out of a total of $US3.9 billion awarded by the Asian Development Bank between 1979 and 1983 Australia won only $US51m. A case could therefore be made for a greater proportion of Australia's multilateral aid contributions flowing to Australian business. The level of Australia's commitment to multilateral programs should be reviewed if such an increase cannot be achieved. I would not want my contribution to this debate to be misinterpreted. My attitude is not intended to be harsh, callous or unfeeling. What I am seeking is a situation in which our aid reaches those in need and also benefits Australia in the process. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(8.24) —I rise to give my strong support to the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill. The Government's decision to provide an extra $60m to the International Development Association beyond an initial $200m contribution to the IDA's seventh replenishment made last year has been made necessary by the Reagan Administration's decision to reduce its contribution in real terms. This is particularly regrettable, given the fact that the IDA has played such a key role in providing low cost capital flows to the poorest countries in the world. The United States of America, as the largest and richest nation on earth, has historically been the biggest single subscriber to the IDA, and its refusal to maintain this level of support will now seriously jeopardise the effectiveness of the organisation. Development assistance is an important component of any government's foreign policy. Given that 80 per cent of the world's population receives only 20 per cent of the world's income, basic issues of social justice are involved in the foreign aid debate. I commend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) for his stirring commitment to those principles of social justice so desperately lacking in the Opposition contributions to the debate on this Bill. I believe that on a broader issue there can be no lasting peace in the world without social justice. It is important in the context of this debate that we bear that principle in mind. During the last 20 years parts of the developing world have made good economic progress. Notable examples are Brazil, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore, all of which have experienced extraordinarily high growth rates. Regrettably, the redistribution mechanisms within the domestic sectors of those countries have been less than satisfactory. However, the pace of development has been much slower and sometimes negative in the low-income countries. These countries remain highly dependent on financial development assistance from the industrialised countries, and the International Development Association is an important part of that assistance. For example, in 1980 the IDA financed 65 per cent of the deficits of the low-income countries, with the IDA accounting for 16 per cent of the total official development assistance to those countries. By contrast the middle-income countries, such as Brazil and the others I have mentioned, are able to rely more heavily on private capital flows, although this has now led them into deep trouble, as the international private banks have discovered to their mutual concern. The crucial role of the International Development Association cannot be emphasised enough. The world's poorest countries do not have the resources to feed themselves adequately or to provide such amenities as clean water supply, transportation, health care or educational services that we in the West regard as basic minimum requirements for the enjoyment of a happy and healthy existence. Moreover, because of their poverty these countries are unable to attract commercial loans from international private banks to finance projects which may alleviate poverty. The funds provided by the IDA are therefore in a very real sense a lifeline for these countries. The IDA provides soft loans with 50-year maturities with a 10-year grace period and no interest. Their targets are the very poorest countries. The contribution by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) concerned me greatly because he seemed not to grasp the point that we are dealing with blinding poverty. We are not debating the development of the Australian primary industry sector or the development of Australian industry; we are talking about social justice in the most desperate, gripping poverty-stricken parts of the world. But Madam Deputy Speaker, you would never know that that was the subject of the Bill if you heard the contributions from the Opposition side in the course of this debate. In the 1960s the bulk of IDA funds went to infrastructure development, but this subsequently changed in the 1970s, when it was directed, as I have indicated, to the alleviation of poverty. Agricultural and rural development has received the largest share of IDA lending, up to 38 per cent, while lending for basic infrastructure accounts for 30 per cent of IDA's total lending. I think the track record of the IDA is worth referring to because since the organisation was created some 20 years ago 27 countries have graduated from or gone beyond the poverty level. They include countries such as Indonesia, Tunisia and Turkey, which are no longer within the lowest level of the IDA program. At present 51 nations meet the criteria for IDA credits; and 81 per cent of them have per capita incomes of $US410 a year or less, while 14 per cent have per capita incomes of between $US410 and $US795. The emphasis of the IDA seventh replenishment, which is to cover the fiscal period 1985 to 1987, is to be on Africa, where 20 of the 30 poorest countries are located and whose dire economic problems and low credit-worthiness with commercial banks require special treatment. I turn again to the contribution, or lack of it, by the Reagan Administration. The decision of that Administration to cut its contribution in light of these circumstances is inhumane, to say the least; but, when it is evaluated in terms of the political objectives that are sought through this initiative, I regard the United States role as a disgrace which deserves international condemnation. Ever since the Reagan Administration came to power it has expressed an instinctive ideological hostility for the IDA and has persistently attempted to use its economic muscle and political influence to redirect the bank's activities towards more private sector oriented activities. We have heard it all tonight from what the Leader of the House (Mr Young) refers to as cockeys' corner. Members of the National Party of Australia have put forward the same line as Ronald Reagan has put forward. They have not asked: 'What can we do for the rest of the world?' They have not asked: 'What small contribution might Australia be able to make to social justice throughout the world?' They have asked: 'How can we make a buck out of it?' In that respect it is important that we have regard to what the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program said on the question of direct food aid. I am sure that some of our friends in the National Party would seek to upgrade the role of direct food aid, because the Jackson report, which examined Australia's overseas aid program, opposed the growing international tendency to use such aid as a convenient means of improving the lot of donor countries by disposing of unmanageable agricultural surpluses. That report also stated that the balance between bilateral and multilateral aid was about right and it recommended increased support for development banks, notably the World Bank. I suggest that, if this Parliament and governments of Australia commission reports to present a reassessment, an overview, of major aspects of government expenditure such as aid programs, it would do honourable members opposite the world of good actually to read what those reports have put forward. If they did so, they would not come into this chamber pushing their sectional barrow; rather, they would have regard to what is best for Australia's long term interests and those in the rest of the world who desperately need our assistance. In regard to the role of the Reagan Administration, I do not believe that there can be any better example of the insensitive and harsh consequences of monetarist philosophy than is shown by its role. The provision of funds to the poorest countries to alleviate the most desperate conditions of poverty is opposed because such countries do not provide an attractive market for commercial lending. Of course, we have seen in Australia over a period of years the role of the Treasury and the role of the Department of Finance and leading individuals in those departments, including the former head of the Treasury, Mr Stone, who at one stage even opposed food aid to Bangladesh on the ground that in his perception it would be inefficient. I reject those monetarist views because I do not believe that they are either in the interests of the Australian people or in the interests of people throughout the world. The Americans, in relation to their contribution, have reneged on an earlier promise to meet their share of commitments for an IDA budget of $12 billion. Originally, the World Bank President had proposed a $16 billion budget for IDA-7 in order for it to meet adequately the development assistance needs in its program. Following persistent approaches, a stand by the Reaganites and months of tortuous negotiations between the Bank and the United States Treasury, a compromise figure of $12 billion was agreed. However, even that was not enough to satisfy the Reagan Administration. That Administration has refused to give more than $2.5 billion, which effectively limits IDA-7 to a budget of $9 billion. This represents a 31 per cent decline from the United States contribution to IDA-6 and if inflation is taken into account it amounts to a 40 per cent decline. Mr Slipper —What are the Russians giving? Mr TICKNER —We have an interjection. The honourable member cannot restrain himself. We are talking about blinding poverty throughout the world, and what do we hear from this representative of cockies' corner? We hear: 'What are the Russians doing?' In this House last night we saw a good example of the integrity of Government members when it comes to even-handed criticism of the major powers in the world in regard to their role in international affairs. Opposition members interjecting- Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) was referred to by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and by members who are interjecting now as a representative of Moscow. It was the hoary old discredited Bob Menzies line of the 1950s, the same old line. Of course, the interjection showed the same sort of mentality. Last night the honourable member for Hotham criticised in the most strident terms the role of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. I, too, will readily criticise the Soviet Union and any other power in the world if I believe that they are deserving of criticism. It is a grave reflection on the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), who seeks to take such a discredited phoney approach to such an important debate. As I was saying, the reduction by the United States amounts to a 40 per cent decline when inflation is taken into account. As a consequence, the International Development Association has been forced to seek supplementary funding from other donors to make up the $3 billion shortfall. If that is not successful, the reduced budget will mean that the special action program planned for Africa may have to be severely cut. However, because Africa would have at any rate received half the IDA budget allocation, the Bank's directors may agree to maintain its share and make cuts elsewhere. This will mean that the least developed countries outside Africa, such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma and Laos, will suffer unless supplementary funding is forthcoming. I am both distressed and appalled by the actions of the Reagan Administration when it can, on the one hand, savagely reduce its foreign aid assistance to the poorest countries in the world and yet, on the other, increase its budget for military arms expenditure. I, together with other members, am ready to match that criticism in relation to any other power throughout the world that does not pull its weight in alleviating poverty and advancing the cause of social justice. This Bill seeks to achieve that end. I commend it to the House and I ask that honourable members opposite show some concern and compassion for the true aims of this Bill and not allow themselves to indulge in sectarian, discredited, haranguing interjections. Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not make any sectarian interjections. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.39) —Some of the comments made by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), particularly in relation to the United States, could only be described as a little hysterical. While to some extent I have some sympathy with his argument that the United States has reduced its contribution to the International Development Association, if one were to give the even-handed view that the honourable member for Hughes would hope to give but apparently has not, one would refer also to the dramatic lack of commitment from the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc towards alleviating the very grave problems of poverty that exist around the world. I am happy to join with my colleagues in giving my support to the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill and I am pleased that the Government has, for the first time since its election in March 1983, shown some interest in the appalling social and economic plight of the less developed countries. Honourable members will well remember the constructive and positive contribution of the Fraser Government to assisting developing countries in real need, both through Australia's growing overseas development budget during the Fraser years and the strong stance taken by that Government in international fora in support of a fairer and more liberal global economic climate. Although the Labor Opposition at that time frequently derided, and apparently still does deride, the work of the Fraser Government- Mr Bilney —And rightly so. Mr DOWNER —Indeed, it is interesting that one of the practitioners of that policy, the former High Commissioner to Jamaica, the honourable member for Kingston, should now be deriding his own work. The fact is that the Fraser Government's commitment to what was then known as the North-South dialogue was a very great commitment. However, the Australian Labor Party during the 1983 election campaign made a firm undertaking to achieve the agreed United Nations target of committing 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product to foreign aid. I note that in the 1983-84 financial year Australia's aid budget was 0.51 per cent of GDP but that this year it fell to 0.49 per cent of GDP. The fact is that the honourable member for Hughes, while he continually derides the Opposition on matters of aid in an extremely self-righteous way, should address some of his questions to his own Government, which is reducing, not increasing, its commitment to helping developing countries. However, the trend towards reducing, not increasing, our aid budget is of course a break with an election commitment. It can be explained away by stating that Australia's budgetary situation demands constraint, as of course it does. To have pledged to increase aid funding to 0.7 per cent of GDP and instead to have reduced aid expenditure as a proportion of GDP was, in terms of foreign policy, somewhat injudicious. If the Australian Labor Party were seriously concerned about expenditure-the last two Budgets prove that it is not-it would have been far wiser to have been honest about its real commitment to aid and not raised amongst developing countries, in particular our neighbours, false expectations which in reality have meant nothing. The damage done to our international credibility by the Government's misleading approach to international economic development will at least partly be rectified by its commitment to the World Bank and in particular the World Bank's soft loan affiliate, the IDA. Of course, this is a commitment which is embodied in this Bill. Honourable members will be aware that the seventh IDA replenishment beginning in fiscal year 1985 has brought pledges of $9 billion largely from industrialised countries, certainly not from the Eastern bloc. Originally the World Bank's President, Mr Clausen, asked for $16 billion for IDA. However, when it became clear that the figure was unobtainable- Mr Robert Brown —Why? Mr DOWNER —I will come to that in a minute. He opted for a compromise figure of $12 billion. It was disappointing that the United States Administration, in particular the United States Treasury, felt unable to make available funds to make even that reduced target possible. In spite of contrary advice from Secretary of State Shultz, it opted to reduce substantially its contribution to the IDA. The result is that the IDA's ability to assist less developed countries will be severely restricted over the next three years. Australia originally pledged $200m to the IDA for the 1985-87 period. This is a figure smaller than had been anticipated because of the unexpected reduction in the American contribution and the fact that Australia's contribution is determined as a percentage of the total budget, not as an absolute. The original proposal for a total contribution of some $16 billion would have led to an increase in Australia's contribution of several hundred million dollars; so I suppose it is fair to say that even with a contribution of $260m Australia is not paying as much as it would have done under the original proposal. The additional $60m special contribution embodied in the Bill will go a very small way towards making up the shortfall, thereby providing a little extra relief to less developed countries. I particularly refer to the sub-Saharan countries which at this time have perhaps the greatest need of any countries in the world. Honourable members are aware that a number of factors over the last three years have created substantial additional economic difficulties for less developed countries. First, the sudden emergence of the international debt crisis has reduced very significantly the availability of commercial loans to less developed countries. These are countries which even in relatively good times have difficulty in obtaining credit for their own development. Of course, the result of the world debt crisis is that they have had all the more difficulty in obtaining credit for essential food purchases. They have also had very great difficulty in obtaining credit for essential agricultural development and, indeed, infrastructure development. The second point is that the global economic recession of the early 1980s, which in many parts of the world, possibly including Australia, is continuing, has led to a new round of trade protectionism by many developed countries and indeed by some developing countries. This self-defeating myopia not only has been detrimental to those who have embraced protectionism but also has made it all the more difficult for less developed countries to find markets for the few commodities they produce which are in any way exportable. The recession has also had the effect of depressing very severely world commodity prices. A number of less developed countries, totally dependent on export revenue from one, or at best two or three, of these commodities, have had their survival affected very substantially. The fact is that world commodity prices, even at this time after some degree of global economic recovery, are still extremely depressed. The third point is that climatic conditions, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, have caused the failure of crops, with the resulting widespread famine. It must be noted that in addition to these factors political instability and oppressive ideological and totalitarian governments in a number of developing countries, which have no understanding of the growth generated by a market economy, have inhibited the capacity of their peoples to generate prosperity. There is no better example of that ideological folly than the land management policies of a number of African countries. There are a number of clear solutions to these very pressing problems. It is my view that Australia should be playing its part in providing some role in finding those solutions. There are a number of reasons why we should do that. In the first place-this is an overriding point-as a civilised country we must behave in a humane way, showing, as all honourable members who have spoken in this debate have shown, that we sincerely care about the problems of peoples living in less developed countries. Secondly, I think it is fair to say that we have something to gain from providing overseas aid because poverty leads inevitably to a degree of political instability-often major divisions-within countries which in turn leads to greater regional or global instability which again is something we have to express concern about and do whatever we can to counter. By providing development assistance and by involving ourselves in support for developing countries through measures such as the IDA we can at least make some small contribution to alleviating this problem. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) pointed out, some $800 billion a year currently is being spent on arms, in contrast to the $36 billion a year being spend on aid. I think that shows up the fact that there is still a great deal more work that has to be done in using aid as a tool for generating international political stability, not just concentrating on arms. I think it is also true to say that Australia has very good foreign policy reasons for wanting to be involved in development assistance, perhaps in a way more significant than other developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group. As a result of our geographical position we are largely surrounded by developing countries. Once more I think a firm commitment to those developing countries of our region is in the interests of good relations with them and, therefore, in the longer term interests of the stability of our country. I think it is important to point out that we have a very real economic interest in development issues because, once more, if we contribute aid to developing countries in a way that generates at least the germ of economic growth in those countries, once they are able to get growth under way within their own shores we, as a potential exporting nation, ultimately will be able to benefit from the increased prosperity of those developing countries. To do this we should be encouraging a number of things. One is a much more liberal trading environment to enable less developed countries to gain greater access in particular to the markets of developed countries. We should be playing a role as best we can towards finding solutions to the uncertainty and instability of international financial markets, in particular ensuring that progress is made towards alleviating the burgeoning debt problems of many developing countries. Part of that solution lies in lower real interest rates. In situations where adverse climatic conditions and other insurmountable factors have left thousands upon thousands of people destitute, there is a real role for a body such as the International Development Association to provide funds-seed capital-to get those economies going. There is no better example than Ethiopia, which many economists believe has the potential to feed itself and to build up its economy, but for a number of reasons, some of them political, the country has been reduced to a level of destitution. If it is to overcome that problem, Ethiopia will need seed capital from bodies such as the IDA. There is no doubt that the IDA has already been beneficial to many less developed countries, in particular in Africa and Asia. The IDA has a reputation for efficiency which is unsurpassed by any other international aid agency. That is one very good reason, in my view, why Australia should be giving substantial funds and support to this body and not to a whole range of bodies, particularly United Nations bodies, which have reputations for spending aid inefficiently and consuming a large proportion of aid funds in their own administration. The funding from IDA is not wasted, or not normally wasted, on uneconomic prestige projects. The bulk of it, as other speakers have pointed out, is devoted to agricultural and rural development and basic infrastructure projects. Other members have also pointed out that loans for these purposes are made with 50-year maturities with no interest payments, but those soft loans do not go to newly industrialised countries and better off developing countries. In fact, they are going to genuinely needy countries. Some 81 per cent of countries which qualify for IDA credits have per capita incomes of less than $US410, while 14 per cent have per capita incomes of less than $US795. The emphasis of IDA-7 -the next triennium of the IDA-is to be on Africa, in particular sub-Saharan Africa, and half the IDA's funds will go to that continent. Of the other half, much will go to India and China-at least 40 to 50 per cent of the other half-but funds will also go to less developed countries such as Bangladesh. In my view, these countries present something of a priority for Australia-sub-Saharan Africa for humanitarian reasons, and Asia for obvious regional reasons. These nations are all in great need of emergency support, but there is little a country such as Australia, with its relatively small resources, can do on its own. If we were to mount bilateral projects in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, I believe those funds would be wasted; the impact would be so slight as to be close to irrelevant. As the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program pointed out, we are far better off as part of an efficient multilateral effort where the crisis, or crises as they are in this case, are beyond the scope of Australia to assist significantly alone. The Jackson report gave particular support to the international financial institutions, particularly the IDA, on the grounds that, unlike many United Nations agencies, they have a record of relative efficiency. The report said: The development banks-- and of course the IDA, as part of the World Bank, is one of those- are capable of mobilising capital and expertise on a scale beyond the capacity of most donors, including Australia. It added: The IDA and the Asian Development Fund . . . deserve special support because they contribute to the development of the poorest countries of the world in a significant way. The Jackson report concluded: In giving support to these funds- that is, the IDA and the Asian Development Fund- the principle of burden sharing should be interpreted generously. I do not think many in the Australian community would deny that we are supporting the IDA generously. By providing $260m we are certainly making a substantial contribution to that organisation way beyond the relative size and strength of the Australian economy. As the Jackson report pointed out-I wholeheartedly endorse this conclusion-that money is well spent on a body such as IDA rather than being funnelled to a whole range of international agencies, many of which are very inefficient and many of which would chew up those funds in administration and in providing comfortable cars and apartments, usually in major European cities, not in developing countries, for the benefit of the officials who form parts of those bodies. There is no better example of the way money is chewed up by international bodies than in the heart of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in Paris. That organisation has been wasting an enormous proportion of the funds which have been very generously donated to it with a view to assisting countries, particularly developing countries. The IDA, on the other hand, has not followed that precedent but has used funds expeditiously and in a way that has been most beneficial to a whole range of developing countries. I should like Australia to be seen world wide as a nation which plays a significant role in seeking solutions to the problems of global poverty. I mentioned earlier that I sincerely want our country to be seen not as a greedy and rich nation but as a country which, hopefully, is prosperous but also has a streak of humanity when it comes to dealing with less developed countries which are unable to fend for themselves. I also mentioned earlier that this is also in Australia's foreign policy interest. I believe it is also in our longer term interest, and with a degree of foresight one would say it is in our economic interest. Our resources are not limitless and our contribution must be to some extent relative to the strength of our economy. In the present circumstances I feel that the contribution manifested in this Bill is a useful contribution by Australia towards eradicating abject poverty. I am glad that for the first time since March 1983 the Government has appeared from the woodwork to address these particularly pressing issues of international economic development which, for some reason or other, it has chosen to ignore, possibly because in the past those issues have been associated with the extremely impressive and internationally recognised record of the Government of Malcolm Fraser. Mr John Brown —It would have been a very good speech, but for that. Mr Robert Brown —You ruined a very good speech. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.48) —The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) said that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) ruined a very good speech right at the end by saying that the Fraser Government's performance was somehow impeccable and that the Labor Government's efforts had been a little less so. It is difficult to praise the Fraser Government unequivocally when it is recognised that the only year of its seven-year period of government when foreign aid actually rose was in the year in which the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting took place in Australia-in other words, during the talkfest that was conducted here. Mr Fraser then saw it as necessary to put a lot of money into that. It is important to understand that at that time there were local political considerations that did not necessarily involve global concerns. That point has to be made clear. The second point that has to be made clear is the level in 1975 of the foreign aid component of gross domestic product, or gross national product, as it appears in the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, when there was a transition to the Fraser Government. The aid contribution at the end of the Whitlam period was 0.65 per cent of GNP- Mr Bilney —Very nearly 0.7 per cent. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Very nearly 0.7 per cent, as my colleague the honourable member for Kingston and former High Commissioner to Jamaica reminds the House. I think it is also important to note that through subsequent years the percentage fell to 0.48 per cent in 1980 and to 0.41 per cent in 1981. It rose to 0.57 per cent in 1982, the only reason being that GNP fell. So whilst aid remained constant, with the declining economy under Malcolm Fraser, the consequent percentage going to foreign aid actually increased. That was more accidental than intentional. I think that that has to be put on record because, while the honourable member for Mayo had many sensible things to say, we have to clear that up and say that when we look at those matters the record was not altogether glossy. I think I also have to say on behalf of my colleague the honourable member for Kingston that as High Commissioner to Jamaica he has an impeccable record and we are pleased to have him in this place. I say to the honourable member for Mayo that he would give very much help to this Parliament if he were to speak to the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) because that honourable member did not show the level of vision that the honourable member for Mayo showed in his speech. The honourable member for Fisher was very much concerned about multilateral aid. I note that the honourable member for Mayo also said that he thought that that was an important arena of aid and very sensibly referred to areas such as Ethiopia. I share his concern. In regard to the program of aid and development the honourable member for Mayo, in speaking to the honourable member for Fisher, can perhaps make a contribution to the chamber. I recognise the honourable member for Mayo's contribution in a bipartisan way. I think it is important to say that in this debate we are talking about matters of vision. We are talking about matters of real concern. I note that previous speakers, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Fisher, have paid great attention to that point. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) rightly pointed out that we are dealing with serious matters of humanitarian aid. Many people in the Australian community would have seen television coverage of the circumstances in Ethiopia. That coverage was so moving that some world famous performers saw fit to launch an aid campaign for Ethiopia. Let me encapsulate the position in a way that I think is very telling. I refer to evidence provided to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. In a publication 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa' the Joint Committee refers to a submission made by the Eritrean Relief Association. The report stated: In an address to an International Donors' Conference on Eritrea in Namur, 28-29 April 1983 a representative of the ERA outlined the ERA objectives: The representative said: What we try to do- this really paints the picture in terms of aid targets and our concern: At present, 40 per cent of humanity is suffering form the shortage of food. Somewhere between one and one and a half billion people are living in a state of absolute and abject poverty. These are the underfed, underemployed, illiterate, ill-housed and in ill-health. If this is the picture of the three-quarters of the population of the world, the Third World, how much is it true of Eritrea, a member of the Third World, who has been in continuous war for the last 21 years and who is hit by severe drought from time to time? Therefore food has become our primary concern at present. Due to shortage or absence of food, the deficiency of proteins, vitamins and minerals, malnutrition has become rampant among the Eritrean population. Malnutrition is the single most serious problem at the heart of all the diseases that have made the lives of our people unbearable. Children, pregnant women, lactating mothers and old people have been the special victims of malnutrition. Therefore, we have to struggle hard against malnutrition by providing the population with adequate food both in quality and quantity, and also provide them with proper health service. He went on to say: Education is expanding everywhere in Eritrea. The Zero School is opening junior and senior high schools. Elementary schools are sprouting everywhere. Above all, literacy education is in a very high demand. The printing of alphabetical books has assumed a very significant position at present. However, we should also try to minimise and ultimately stop depending on relief aid. Thus we are trying to go into rehabilitation and development activities. This is, unfortunately, determined, to a great extent, by the military situation. A military balance of forces in favour of Eritrea means an expansion in our activities both in relief and rehabilitation. At this time, Ethiopian troops are confined to the cities and major roads. The entire countryside is free from Ethiopian presence. Rehabilitation and development work is possible in vast areas of Eritrea. Thus we have entered a stage where we can help farmers produce food by providing them with seeds, tools, et cetera, caring for their animal health, drilling wells for human and animal consumption, and providing the handicapped with physical and vocational rehabilitation. I think it is interesting that the ERA spokesperson referred to the military situation, because one issue that has never really been brought clearly into focus for the Australian community is that the appalling circumstances being experienced by the populations of both Ethiopia and Somalia were the outcome of super-power rivalry and the fact that the super-powers were using both Somalia and Ethiopia for their own military goals. What we in the Australian Parliament, the Australian Government and the Australian community ought to understand is that we have an obligation to ensure that our aid gets to the people who need it most. One of the disappointing things I found in the contribution of the honourable member for Fisher is that he did not appear to recognise that. Previous speakers noted that, but he seemed to miss the very substantial point that the object of aid is to do something about alleviating the harsh circumstances being experienced by people. We are not talking about people who are just marginally worse off than the average; we are talking about people who are dying in thousands, and this occurs on a daily basis. So we are talking about a very serious situation. When we talk about our objectives in terms of aid, we are talking about whether we as a well-developed country have an obligation to deliver some of our wealth to those who need it most. We on this side of the House have no doubts about that. We recognise our obligation. I believe that this obligation also goes hand in hand with the independent foreign policy that our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been working on. We in Australia have a right to stand up for ourselves in the forums of the world and put viewpoints that we believe are important. At the same time, we in this place have a right to direct our foreign aid in a way that we believe will meet the needs of the people in the countries to which we are donating that aid. They are the important frameworks within which we work. The Jackson report raised a number of serious concerns as to whether or not aid should be directed in certain ways. One issue that is important in terms of our attitude to aid is whether we have an effective monitoring of our aid. That is very important, because if we as a government are going to engender confidence in the Australian community in our use of taxpayers' dollars in foreign places, we have to be in the position to say to the Australian community: 'We are spending your dollar or we are delivering your dollar to others who are spending them and those dollars are being used in a most effective way'. That is an important obligation which we have. We recognise it and we recognise it very clearly. There also has to be a more effective evaluation of programs at the end of those programs so that again we will be able to report back to the Australian community: 'We have been contributing to a country. The consequences of our contribution are such that we can now show in this place that your dollars have resulted in increases in health standards, increases in the capacity to deliver food, increases in education standards, increases in housing standards'. We have to be able to demonstrate to the Australian community that the dollars we are spending are being well spent. That also goes along with another obligation, that is, that our priorities in terms of aid must be correct. I believe that we have some very clear priorities and the major priority we must have is the humanitarian priority. It is interesting to note that the Jackson report talks about three priorities: Humanitarian; defence or strategic; and trade or business priorities. It says that in most senses those three priorities are self-reinforcing. I think that particularly in the area of South East Asia we are developing a profile that shows that these priorities can be self-reinforcing. For clear reason there is some concern over the future of Vietnam and Kampuchea. The power situation in Kampuchea is as yet unstable in terms of what may happen down the track. If we are pursuing a sensible and independent foreign policy I believe that it is possible for us to use our aid to meet those three objectives. If we look to the Horn of Africa we can see very clearly that the strategic or defence objectives being pursued in the countries of Ethiopia and Somalia are quite clearly at odds with the humanitarian objectives that we might have as a country. It is also interesting and important to observe that whilst the Australian aid effort has not been large in that part of the world, that aid and our representatives are highly regarded by people in that area. We have many reasons to feel proud about the work that we are doing there. A lot more work needs to be done and a lot more contribution needs to be made in terms of personnel and in terms of dollars, but at least the sort of program we have commenced and the objectives we have are ones that we can say are worth while and are being carried out appropriately. I think that is very important because in places such as the Horn of Africa the super-powers-the Soviet Union and the United States-have very tarnished reputations indeed when one recognises that in recent history both have chosen to change their horses, if you like. Why is it that now the Siad Barre regime in Somalia is being backed by the United States and the regime in Ethiopia is being backed by the Soviet Union, yet a few years back it was the other way round? What a cynical exercise and what a disastrous proposition we have when two countries can be manipulated by the super-powers as if they were chess pieces, with no concern for the real needs of the people. When we see such absolutely heart-rending television coverage, as we did prior to Christmas, we have to say that at the heart of that is the cynical exercise of super-power rivalry by the United States and the Soviet Union. Let us be very clear about that. What we have to pursue as an Australian Government-and I believe that we are pursuing it-is a more independent position. We want to deliver aid because we believe that we can assess the targets. One of the things that the Fraser Government did was to make us aware that it was possible to pursue an independent foreign policy in southern Africa that would stand up to world scrutiny. It has stood up to scrutiny and the Fraser Government deserves credit for that. We have taken that theme and we are looking at it in respect of another arena of the world. We are certainly looking at it in South East Asia. When we look at the Horn of Africa, which is legitimately an area of great concern, the sad thing is that evidence was given to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at least two years prior to the horrific situation that we saw just before last Christmas. Of course, in some senses such evidence falls on deaf ears. Why do we have to get to an absolute catastrophe before the world wakes up to itself? That is a sad message for all of us because, as other speakers have said-and I recognise speakers on both sides in this respect-it is really unconscionable that we have expenditure on arms growing at a disproportionate rate, and the two super-powers have to accept responsibility for that, and yet at the same time we have an aid program which largely is creeping up but is not dealing in a substantial way with what we see as being the serious problems of the world. This piece of legislation and the funding that goes with it are a very important expression by Australia saying that we are a small country, in terms of both political clout and economic stature, but we can at least have an independent position in terms of foreign aid whereby we say that we will deliver our taxpayers' dollars in a way that we believe is very effective. As previous speakers have said, I believe very convincingly, the International Development Association is a very effective way of using our funds. It is a soft loan arrangement. It is a very effective way of using our funds for building up an important infrastructure. The observation which has to remain with us and which will linger with us for a long time is that those pictures that many of us have seen of the horror that is being experienced in Ethiopia reflect a number of things. They reflect a failure of governments in that country to do the proper thing. There is a very telling testimony of the fact that Ethiopia has been governed by minorities for far too long, for about 100 years. There is a failure of governments to be representative. The second point is that meddling by super-powers results in absolute deprivation. That is happening in Afghanistan at the moment. It is an absolute tragedy. It has certainly happened in the Horn of Africa. It is unconscionable. Many of us fear for Central America for the same reasons, that the local communities simply get brushed aside by the demands of the super-powers. The third point is that the infrastructure is absolutely important. If we are committing ourselves to a program that is working towards the goals we have outlined here, we must be very clear that we have goals to eliminate the exploitation, because at the base of it all is the serious exploitation. What else is it but imperialism under another name, the corollary of which is clearly exploitation? Imperialism carries with it exploitation, be it economic exploitation, political or strategic exploitation. We obviously have an objective in this place to say, at least in our small but determined way, that we are going to do something about it. In the light of the speeches of my colleagues on this side of the House, which I commend to honourable members and to the Australian community, I believe that we as a Government are taking some very important initiatives. I believe we are doing some substantial things and in this small way, in the context of IDA funding, we are continuing a respectable and responsible approach to aid funding and to foreign policy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.16) —I am glad that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said that his side of the House was endeavouring to do its part in 'continuing' the efforts of this country, which under the preceding Government was very active in the area of overseas development assistance. I rise to associate myself with the International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill. I have in fact spoken in support of similar measures over many years in this Parliament. The bipartisanship evident here tonight is important because we quite often come up against a view in the electorate that charity begins at home, that there are more important priorities just down the road, that there are our own poor and underprivileged. That is not denied. Nevertheless, there is an important obligation and indeed national interest in the undertaking of and participation in international aid programs. It begins in humanitarian terms. We are dealing with abject poverty-grinding poverty. There are many millions of people dying of starvation every year. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) said, 30 children die of starvation every minute. I commend to those who read Hansard that they look back and consider some of the things that the honourable member for Charlton stated so eloquently. While there is in fact this humanitarian compulsion, the compulsion of the injunction that 'of those to whom much is given much will be expected', I think it is important to stress, as has come out of this debate, that the importance of contributing to the international aid effort also rests on the preservation of world peace. As the former American President, Mr Carter, said, we cannot have a peaceful world one-third rich and two-thirds hungry. The fact is that the circumstances of underdevelopment, the poverty of the South vis-a-vis the rich North, exacerbated in many cases by great power intervention, are a potential source of conflict, with the possibility of escalating to a world conflict almost as much as the tensions between East and West. What is at stake here in the not so long run is no less an objective than world peace. We talk of being compelled on humanitarian grounds. We are compelled in terms of the preservation of world peace. Then there is the mutual economic interest of both the donor countries and the recipient countries, the developing countries. There is a great and increasing mutual dependence between the developed and the developing countries which means in effect that it is in our straightout long term economic interests to mount a significant development aid effort. I think that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) on this side of the House has come in for some unjustified criticism for looking at this issue in a down to earth way and for considering ways in which we can maximise the benefit. Let us recognise that it is a matter of mutual economic interest. Reference was made earlier to the world recession of the early 1980s, which is continuing to some extent. I do not think there is any doubt that if it had not been for the massive deficit-financed spending, so to speak, of the developing world during that period, which provides a large market for the products of developed countries-just as the developed countries are markets for the developing countries; there is a mutual interdependence-the extent of the decline in world economic activity would have been greater and unemployment in the developed countries, which was very significant, would have been higher still. It was the purchasing by the developing world, admittedly financed by massive borrowing, which held up world economic activity to the extent that it was held up during that period. So let us recognise the humanitarian importance of this matter and the terrible, appalling poverty of two-thirds of the world's population, particularly the 800 million or so absolute poor-but let us recognise also the mutual economic interest in bringing about change in this area. I appeal to the electorate in those terms: We need political support. It is a problem of quite massive proportions. It is a problem which can be tackled only by government or large scale private sector activity in terms of the level of lending which we saw in recent years. I stress that point and in doing so I do not in any way belittle the contributions in the area from voluntary organisations such as Freedom From Hunger organisation and other such groups. As I have been trying to stress, those organisations are of the utmost importance in the context of the need to mobilise political opinion in this country in support of Australia's aid effort. The magnitude is such that only governments and large scale commercial activity can come up with the resources on the necessary scale; and one is gratified by the support, which is apparent on both sides of this House for the measure which is currently before us. A moment ago I referred to that large scale 'deficit-financed' spending by developing countries resulting, of course, in the build up of a massive level of debt of the order of $600 billion over a relatively few years. Reference has been made to that problem and the impact it has by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and others. It has been seen widely as a sort of volcano about to explode, threatening the world economy and world finance. I think it is possible to overstate this danger, but still there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later the developed countries, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group, must attend to this problem, in terms of an internationally co-ordinated effort to stretch out the debt of the developing countries and to reduce rates of interest on their borrowings. I have no doubt-let me put it as 'no illusions'-that the ultimate cost will be borne by Western taxpayers as that operation is put into effect, bank debts are taken over as government bonds, and so on. That will amount to an additional, involuntary, transfer to the less developing countries. I believe that in the long run these transfers have to be vastly increased on what they are at present, so I do not necessarily disapprove of that, that is, the additional transfer. But again I simply stress that there is a good deal of mutual benefit in the procedure. It is not just a soft-headed, charitable outlook to say that eventually we will have to get down to the job of dealing with that problem. I mention one other aspect in passing. This is perhaps a useful context in which to contemplate the total national stewardship of our own resources. Currently this country is running a balance of payments deficit which is estimated officially to be in the order of $9.5 billion. In the end it may well add up to $11 billion or $12 billion. We rely very heavily on capital inflow to finance this deficit. At this level it is an amount which I believe is over and above what is reasonable for the development of this country. It reflects the fact that for the time being at least we are living beyond our means and we are financing it in this way. The recent depreciation of the dollar reflects that fact. Indeed, it reflects economic pressure, for a time, for reduced living standards. Yet what we get is pressure on all sides for increases in real incomes. They are almost guaranteed via the accord. Yet if that does take place the effect of the recent depreciation of the dollar, by way of restoring the international competitiveness of this country, will be undermined and there will be further difficulties down the road. I conclude on the note that reference has been made here tonight to the enormous cost of maintaining the nuclear balance by which nevertheless the peace of the world is preserved. I wish simply to say in that regard that, while a very large proportion of total military spending is made by the super-powers, it is not confined only to them. The complexity, the challenge and the utter frustration-I think that was the word I used by way of interjection when the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) addressed himself to this very point-in this whole area is graphically underlined by the statistic of a recent year-the latest available to me-which shows that the non-oil-producing developing countries, which are generally the poorest, received in official development aid of the order of $US33.5 billion; whereas those same countries spent $US38.4 billion on military spending, a sum greater than they spent on education, health and welfare put together. I repeat: It underlines the complexity, the utter frustration, of those of us who would seek to achieve something in this area. One might say that it would be great if we could have a formula which linked the receipt of aid with effecting a decrease in spending on arms in these countries. The Germans tried something like that a few years back with some Latin American countries. But that is quite Utopian; it is a dream-world. What is important is that this apparently perverse situation should not lead us to curtail the sorts of activities, actions and the provision of funds that we are debating tonight. We have to work in that direction. Simultaneously we have to work in the direction of the negotiation of arms control and disarmament. We have to continue with great purpose on both these fronts in the interests of the adequate development of the world economy and the preservation of international peace. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(9.30) —in reply-I very much appreciate the rather extensive bipartisan approach to this issue. Traditionally, there has been that sort of bipartisan approach. To the extent that critical judgments have been made, those judgments have always been constructive, regardless of from which side they have come. They are the sorts of observations that deserve quite mature and sober attention. Let me assure all honourable members that that sort of attention will be extended on this occasion also. I have had the benefit of hearing in particular most of the contribution of the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), who I think made a number of very important points. The decline in the value of the Australian dollar, of course, does quite substantially affect the value of our international aid in volume terms. In turn, that raises considerations for this country which go well beyond aid. It raises considerations of our domestic management, living standard and prospects for the future. Without canvassing any of the issues that were put by the honourable member, and I do not think he would be too upset if I suggested that in some respects he put them with a sharp partisan edge, there is nonetheless a very important strain of truth in what he was generally saying. I find myself attracted to his concern about the need for arms control, a matter which I have raised on a number of occasions in various fora. Non-oil-producing developing countries in particular and developing countries generally have been spending rather large sums of investable funds on the arms trade. Maybe they find themselves in a situation where they need to spend that sort of money in order to protect themselves. On the other hand, to the extent to which they spend $100m on that sort of investment with little to probably no multiplier effect, they are denying themselves investment in the development of their country with multiplier effects of several times. So I applaud what the honourable member had to say. Similarly, I also endorse the concern he expressed about the super-power arms race which, in itself, represents an extraordinary distortion of world resources. To the extent that money is spent in that area, whatever the justifications may or may not be, and this is not the debate to canvass those issues, the fact is that those resources could make the world a far better place to live in, particularly if they were diverted to poorer countries. I notably record the comments of the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), whose speech I heard before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. I noted his depth of feeling and genuineness of commitment. I think that the general impressive analytical approach of his contribution helped to maintain the very high level of debate. For this country, which in its traditional way believes in fair play and a concern for others, I believe that the observations he made were consistent with those values. For the Australian Labor Party as a democratic socialist party with an internationalist commitment with particularly a moral concern about the less developed countries, I thought that many of the points the honourable member made were pertinent, telling and deserving of further attention. I should like to move on to some of the particular observations made by other members. In doing so, I do not respond in any negative critical way at all. All the observations were made in a very constructive sense. It is rewarding to find that there is bipartisanship, which means that there is broad community support, for the contributions of government, regardless of political colour, to important international development agencies such as the International Development Association. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution, raised some questions about where the aid was going and whether it was going to be used for longer term development prospects for countries as distinct from short term responses to immediate crises. I understand that the particular example he cited was the situation in Africa today. There we have an enormous human dilemma, with the problem of famine accentuated by rapid population growth and inappropriate agricultural development policies. The honourable member is entirely justified in raising those questions. In a sense, developing countries face a great dilemma in seeking to respond to this problem. The worse the problem becomes the greater the volume of resources we must direct towards relieving immediate crises. The more we devote resources to that sort of relief the less we have resources available to devote to longer term structural adjustment. I refer here to the sorts of agricultural development policies and perhaps transmigration policies that should be pursued. So the worse the problem gets the more our capacity to respond to it in a more lasting sense is diminished. I have no simple solutions to that problem. It is a problem that is very bad, continues to get worse, and will get even worse. In a very real sense the International Development Association seeks to penetrate to the core of those sorts of problems. I will give the House some of the break-up of the way in which IDA project funding was distributed in 1984, for instance. Some 40 per cent of funds were devoted to agricultural and rural development; 14 per cent to energy; 10 per cent to transportation; and 13 per cent to basic human needs such as health, education, water and population control measures. So we are looking at more than $3 out of $4 being allocated to those areas. We should bear in mind that at a time of very high interest rates the rates set by the IDA are markedly concessional and therefore are highly desirable. It is the sort of aid which will allow countries to get under way in very difficult times. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) expressed some concern that perhaps too much of this sort of aid was going to the more industrialised of the developing countries, and he cited the case of India. We ought to be very clear about India. I think we tend to get disjointed perspectives about that country. Parts of India represent great wealth and great industrial development and have a substantial military structure. Other parts are quite poor. One might like to moralise and say that India should have a more equitable distribution of its income. I suggest, however, that Australia is scarcely in a position to do that. To the extent that we do have wealth distribution analyses available, they show that Australia has one of the highest concentrations of wealth of any of the industrialised countries. We are per capita quite wealthy and, therefore, we can afford to make mistakes. We can afford to maldistribute and still manage to survive quite comfortably. The margin for error is much less for countries with low per capita income, and this is particularly true of India. I think we lose sight of the fact that errors in that country have enormous social and economic costs. A dollar or two per capita represents a large aggregate amount but as a proportion of what is available it is not great. We tend to see those things as exemplifying imbalances in the priorities of those countries. That is wrong. More than that, we fail to see the environment in which countries such as India have to function. For instance, rightly or wrongly, the fact is that India sees itself in a somewhat unstable regional situation. This in turn applies pressure to it in respect of defence spending. Whether that is wise or not is not an issue I am canvassing at the moment. I am talking more in terms of political judgments, which are often quite distinct from what people might conclude is a rational development of an analysis of a particular situation in a specimen jar. We do not live in specimen jars. We make many decisions politically which diverge from what would be a consistent rational course. I think it is true in the case of a number of the countries cited. I think it is true in the case of India. I think it is also very true in the case of Australia. I do not think it should be surprising that a country, which per capita is as relatively poor as India, should be seeking to aggregate rather large lumps of investable funds in particular areas of industrial development. It seems to me that the objective there is to try to maximise industrial and therefore economic growth in particular areas and to bring in a sort of slipstream in economic progress which pulls other sectors of the economy in behind it, and that eventually all sectors of the community will be better off. Whether that is wise I think is a debatable matter. The fact is that, as a response to a very difficult economic and social situation, it makes a great deal of sense, particularly if linked with the sort of cottage industry development which has been taking place in India in recent years. There are two levels of development-capital intensification and mass participation at another level. This sort of development is a very tricky thing to pull off, but if we do not want large numbers of the population in a relatively poor country with a relatively low per capita level of income to be alienated, perhaps leading to dissidence, something like this has to be explored. I believe that this is what India has been doing. We should recognise that India has been phenomenally successful in a number of fields, including in improving its food self-sufficiency in a number of areas. Nonetheless, having said all of that, let us focus in particular on the International Development Association. We find that in 1980 some 40 per cent of IDA credits went to India and under IDA-7, which is what we are considering now, 22.5 per cent of those funds are expected to go to India. So it is not as though India is being particularly indulged, specifically receiving favourable treatment to the detriment of other countries; rather, the evidence is that a very discerning approach is being adopted by the IDA authorities. In turn, one would draw the conclusion that this is imposing certain economic disciplines on India. I repeat that if one looks at the overall performance of India one can see impressive improvements in a number of sectors. One should not expect a level of puritanical self-denial across the economy so that everyone moves up at the same rate. Indeed, there is a respectable body of economic theory which would argue for specific areas or peaks of progress which could maximise economic growth, given certain levels of available investable funds, but these in turn lead to the slipstream effect of pulling other sectors of the economy through. I ought perhaps to recall that in terms of IDA Australia's contribution is reasonably respectable. We provide 1.98 per cent of the total contribution. If we were to share the total contribution of contributor countries in proportion to their Gross National Products our contribution would be 2.06 per cent. That allows for the fact that we provide $200m as the basic contribution and an extra $60m, which takes our contribution to above 2.06 per cent, as a special contribution, given the present problems in that the United States of America has seen fit, for a range of reasons, to provide a contribution which is less than that which would normally have been expected. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) understandably raised questions about the need for aid to be related to commerce. This is a very popular sentiment often put forward in the community. In short it should be tied. We are talking about the contribution of aid to international financial institutions. Only about 10 per cent of our total aid, something like $1,000m in the coming financial year, goes to international financial institutions. If we are to talk about the benefits that we get out of aid I think the first thing we should focus on generally is development aid which we provide bilaterally. I have had some analyses done for me. The very interesting thing in that regard is that, apart from the very direct evidence of benefits for Australian business when we provide aid which has been, for whatever reason, tied to particular industries, when we look at the balance of trade in the countries which are recipients of aid from Australia, we see that in every instance there is a surplus in favour of Australia and, overall, a substantial surplus. I do not believe that the argument that our aid is not benefiting Australian commerce stands up. I invite honourable members to look at those statistics because they demolish that sort of argument. I believe that we have to be cautious in approaching a more vigorous tying of aid because we may well end up in a situation whereby our aid programs for developing countries become subsidies for Australian industries and in a more normal economic situation, where criteria of competitiveness and quality of performance apply, those industries should perhaps not be seriously considered. My views are somewhere in between the two extremes. I express that sort of caution and I remind honourable members that Australia does very well out of the aid programs. If we look in particular at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and IDA projects we find that procurements benefiting Australia in the six years to 1982-83 exceeded something like $A250m while our contributions were only about $200m. I suggest that at our most modest we would say that we have not done badly, that we are nearly breaking even. I think at our most realistic we would say that we are doing a little better than that. The final observations to which I refer are those of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). They again were quite thoughtful and contributed to the bipartisan approach which applied in this debate, as it has applied for several years. The only discordant note I would sound relates to his lauding of the Fraser Government's period in office and its contribution to the north-south debate. My quite distinct recollection is that the Fraser Government, in particular the Prime Minister of that period, was very strong on rhetoric but very weak on performance. We find that there were two policies in operation-overseas, a more open, freer trade approach to the needs of developing countries; and at home, a more closed and protectionist approach to the needs of Australian industry. We cannot have both. They are mutually exclusive, and in practice it was the latter which applied in all instances where there was a competitive decision to be made between the two. This has been a most stimulating and thoughtful debate all round. I think it reflects quite favourably on the Australian community. Members of this Parliament are representative of the Australian community. They will in turn reflect the values, the feelings and the aspirations of members of the Australian community. It is quite clear from the debate tonight that members of the Australian community, through their appointed spokesmen, feel that projects such as those supported by the International Development Association are thoroughly worthy of Australian support. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Brumby, Mr Coleman, Mr Conquest, Dr Harry Edwards, Mr Fitzgibbon, Mr Grace and Dr Theophanous be members of the Publications Committee. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos. 5, 6 and 7. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.52) —The Opposition endorses the establishment of an Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. This is the third and final stage of a plan to alter the administration of the meat and livestock industry. The first stage was the reconstitution of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. This was followed by the creation of an industry parliament, the Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. The Research and Development Corporation will take over the role of the Australian Meat Research Committee. Joint producer-government sponsorship of research into industry production and marketing began in 1960 through the establishment of the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. Early efforts concentrated on the problems of cattle breeding, but in 1966 the charter was widened to include the sheep meat industry. The name of the body was also changed to the present day Australian Meat Research Committee. Under the existing legislation finance is raised through a levy on cattle, sheep and lamb slaughterings with a matching contribution from the Commonwealth. Any change to the levy rate is recommended by the Meat Research Committee to the AMLC and, in turn, to the Minister for Primary Industry. Under the provisions of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, which are presently before the House, the new Research Corporation will recommend any change to an annual meeting of the industry producers and shall also consult with industry organisations before submitting a recommendation directly to the Minister. Under this legislation maximum levy rates will be doubled. Whilst these new maximum rates will not be implemented in the immediate future, they should provide ample scope for gradual increases over time as the industry sees fit. Amalgamation of the 4c a head Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation levy and the 5c AMRC levy will require the CSIRO to compete against other bodies for research funding. An increased research effort is important because it is clear that the meat industries are falling behind other primary industries in this regard. For instance, wool producers set aside more than one per cent of their gross returns for research. This has been partly responsible for the wool industry remaining comparatively profitable when other industries are deep in the jaws of a cost-price squeeze. In contrast to the wool industry, only about 0.2 per cent of meat industry returns are channelled into research. I believe the industry has failed to maximise its opportunities on the domestic and world markets. Consumer tastes are changing rapidly, yet there has been a degree of inertia on the part of the industry in response to these market challenges. The decision of the Government to raise the maximum level of its matching contribution for rural research over the next five years to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production is to be commended. This should encourage producers to raise the overall level of research, in turn improving domestic and export penetration and creating new rounds of income to the producers and, therefore, wealth in the Australian economy. The new Research Corporation should enjoy a degree of autonomy which will give it flexibility and commercial orientation. The Opposition endorses these goals. I think it is absolutely essential for there to be a commercial orientation of research in this area. Enormous sums have been spent in the area of production research, obviously in the field of agriculture. More and more resources will have to be devoted to the area of market penetration and to ways and means of improving the presentation as well as satisfying consumer demand. The Corporation will prepare a five-year rolling plan for research and development, together with an annual operational plan of individual projects. It will not only cover the beef, cattle and sheep meat industries but also extend its activities to buffalo and goat research. While endorsing the basic framework of this legislation I wish to draw attention to several points of concern. I do so in the hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will recognise that concerns are held by the respective industries over some aspects of these Bills. In each case it is well within the Minister's power to achieve the necessary changes, thereby ensuring maximum benefit for the meat and livestock industries. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to the points I make because I make them in all sincerity. I hope that he can act upon them and give the assurances that certain sectors require. There is a need for clarification of the relationship between the new body and the peak industry councils such as the cattle and sheep meat councils of Australia. I believe it is the intention of the Minister to provide for regular and effective consultation, but it would be helpful if this were spelled out by the Minister either in this House or in his letter of instruction to the new Research Corporation chairman. Perhaps that should be the principal way to address that problem. Although it would be appreciated if the Minister could give that assurance to the House, I think it should be put in writing to the chairman. There is also some concern over the accountability of the new body directly to its producers and exporters from whom it will draw financial support. Of the 11 Corporation members, eight will be selected by the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee to provide a range of skills and expertise. I assure the Minister that these appointments will be closely monitored to make sure that those who finance the research work-that is, the meat and livestock producers and processors-have full and proper representation. Thought must also be given to maximising the cost effectiveness of the Corporation's accountability to its industries. For instance, the annual meeting of the AMLC on 10 May will probably cost more than $200,000 to stage. That seems to be an extraordinary cost. A lot of research could be done with that money. It will be extraordinary if it costs $200,000 to stage the annual meeting each year. I hope that we are not so badly off for sales for our beef that we have to have a big barbecue every time we have an annual meeting in order to accommodate the throngs of people who are likely to come to it. The other accountability area is research. I think some very strong accountability provisions need to be imposed upon the scientific research people. The industry and the contributors to the cost of the various research programs have an obligation to report fairly frequently on the outcome of their research programs. I return to these annual meetings. By planning the annual meetings of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation on consecutive days, if that is possible-I hope it could be-there could well be a substantial cost saving to the industry which would leave additional funds for research. In other words, I suggest it is absolutely essential to try to have both the annual meetings of the Meat and Live-stock Corporation on the same day as the Research and Development Corporation, or on consecutive days, thus trying to save some funds. While endorsing the decision to amalgamate the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation levy-I notice the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table-and requiring the CSIRO to compete with other research bodies for available funds, I draw attention to the drift of resource within this Organisation away from rural and mineral research towards manufacturing, information and service industries. In answer to a question that I placed on the Notice Paper the Minister was good enough to advise me that there will be a further drift of some 2.6 per cent of resources away from rural industries and another 1.6 per cent from minerals, energy and water resources within the CSIRO. The Government must take a long term view and allocate resources within the CSIRO so as not to jeopardise vital rural industry research work. I hope that the Minister will watch this very carefully because the rural sector in Australia is still a very important sector. I know that I have a vested interest in saying so as I represent a rural constituency. Mr Barry Jones —That is not contested. Mr Simmons —I agree with you. Mr HUNT —I know the honourable member for Calare agrees with me on this. Mr Barry Jones —We all agree with you but there are other things which have to be done. Mr HUNT —I realise that. If I could fight a battle with the Minister on this, I would. I think it is essential to get adequate resources for the CSIRO because in this day and age research is vital for the future progress of any industrial sector. The rural sector has done so much over a long period to improve the standard of living of the Australian people. The rural industries are more efficient than a lot of their competing industries overseas because of the valuable work of the CSIRO. We cannot overestimate the importance of the CSIRO. I know that the Minister is concerned about not enough money going to the manufacturing sector-he says that it has to be built up-and not enough money going to some of the other new technology areas. But it would be dreadful if, because of the toe cutters and razor gangs that governments have to put into operation from time to time, particularly in view of budgetary problems, the CSIRO was denied adequate funds and therefore had to do a big shuffle with its resources and in so doing had to deny the agricultural sector funds that it has become accustomed to, funds which have been a tremendously good public investment. Mr McVeigh —CSIRO has a pretty weak Minister. Mr HUNT —I think we will hold our judgment. I do not like being unkind because I think the Minister is one of the more favourable characters in this place. He is highly intelligent and courageous and he has done his best. He says what he thinks. I hope he is able to get his point across in the pre-Budget battles between now and probably the end of June or early July. God bless him. I hope he succeeds in his battles with some of these people who from time to time cannot see the importance of research. I will hold my judgment. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has already cast his judgment. Mr McVeigh —I would just like him to fight a bit harder-and win. Mr HUNT —Yes, but he will probably restrain himself until the next Budget. There is one further concern arising from this legislation which is significant, not only for the livestock industries research effort but for a much wider range of primary industry research. I refer to the way in which members of the new corporation are to be appointed. As I said earlier, eight of the 11 members of this Live-stock Research Board are to be selected by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. But there is a double standard in what is provided for in the legislation. Outside those eight members the government appointee will not be required-I repeat this-the government appointee, whoever he may be, will not be required to satisfy the criteria laid down by the Selection Committee. In other words, we have one rule for the industry representatives and another rule for the government appointee. At the very least the Government is leaving itself open to the charge of giving jobs to the boys. More seriously, the failure of the Minister to bring this government member under the strict Selection Committee criteria will create the impression, particularly within the industry, that his nominee is a political plant. This anomaly could be solved by having one ministerial nominee on the Selection Committee and turning over the ninth selection position to another person from the industry with special skills or qualifications. This should in turn lead to a more efficient application of the Board to its immediate tasks while at the same time clearing the Minister of charges of political influence on the Board. I now turn to the amendment circulated in my name. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that other factors such as heavily increased export inspection charges are adversely affecting competitiveness on vital export markets'. The Opposition is moving this amendment to impress on the Hawke Labor Government the effects of unnecessary burdens that it is placing on the Australian meat and livestock industries, burdens not applied by our competing nations. This is the handicap that our industries cannot carry in a tight world market situation. The honourable member for Groom has said on numerous occasions that the Australian Labor Party whacked a 200 per cent increase on charges and hoped it would not affect export returns. Mr McVeigh —Destroyed a great industry. Mr HUNT —Absolutely. The electoral backlash suffered by the Labor Party in the rural areas of Australia last December-the honourable member for Calare lost a lot of support out there- Mr Simmons —No, we didn't. There was a 1.4 per cent swing to Labor in my electorate. Mr HUNT —He had better improve his performance a bit; otherwise he will lose his seat. The electoral backlash suffered by the Labor Party in the rural areas of Australia last December was proof of its lack of concern for our agricultural industries. The export inspection slug came at a crucial point in the recovery of primary industries from four long years of harsh drought. Labor refused even to consider a two-year moratorium on the increases recommended by its consultative council to enable the industry to recover as soon as possible. The reaction of industry leaders at the time put the savage increase into its true perspective. They called it cynical, bloody-minded and callous. The Hawke Government showed no concern for the industry or remorse for its actions. One wonders how long the Labor Party can expect to remain in office when it imposes a 200 per cent increase on consumption goods purchased by its trade unions members. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council saw the decision as serious enough for it to be challenged in the High Court of Australia, and there were strong moves to this end at the time. The Labor Government rejected the recommendation of the industry parliament, the interim inspection policy council, for a two-year moratorium. The industry estimated that this decision is costing the export meat trade an extra $30m a year at a time when world markets are contracting and high input costs are making Australia's products less and less competitive. Mr Nehl —Shame! Mr HUNT —It is a shame. It is a shocking state of affairs. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) cannot get the grin off his face. Anybody would think he hated the farmers. I cannot understand it because they always gave him a good go in the woolsheds, too. Mr McVeigh —You took your dough when you were shearing, Mick, but they tell me you were a butcher, too. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I think the honourable member for Groom is interfering with the speech of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. Mr HUNT —At the same time, this Government has presided over a series of negotiation debacles led by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on his Asian tour in February last year which has left the industry wondering what the next foul-up will be. The Australian livestock industries, principally the beef and sheepmeat industries, can ill afford the excessive costs of production being imposed by this Government. We need to reverse government thinking, to start looking at ways of reducing costs instead of imposing heavy new burdens to solve the Government's revenue difficulties. The Hawke Government has an opportunity to show the livestock industry that it is genuine in its wish to help the industry to increase its efficiency and competitiveness further. It seems ironic that, on the one hand, Labor is trumpeting its reforms in livestock industry administration while, on the other hand, it is allowing heavy increases in costs such as fuel, labour and inspection charges. It is high time that this two-faced attitude was abandoned and some consistency was demonstrated in government policy. Having said that, the Opposition will not block the passage of these Bills but does call on the Hawke Government to show a genuine concern for the livestock industry by acting immediately on the chance that it has to reduce farm costs, principally by removing the wretched export inspection charge which is helping to drag the industry down into the dust of the cattleyards. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mrs Sullivan —I second the amendment. Debate (on motion by Mr Simmons) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.13) —I rise to speak about the peace awards which the New South Wales Teachers Federation has been actively promoting in New South Wales schools. I refer in particular to the Sam Lewis peace awards that are advertised in various education journals. These awards have the approval of the Department of Education and were first presented to New South Wales schoolchildren in 1983. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has placed a great deal of emphasis on these awards. In fact, the New South Wales Teachers Federation's 'Pilot Resource Folder for Peace Education' which I have here, highlights the Sam Lewis awards in each of the first three pages of that publication. Sam Lewis was, of course, President of the New South Wales Teachers Federation from 1945 to 1952 and from 1964 to 1968. At the first presentation of these awards-- Mr Simmons —He did not drink 2,4,5-T though. Mr COBB —This will be hard for the honourable member to swallow; I can tell him that now. Sam Lewis was lauded by Elizabeth Mattick, herself a life member of the Teachers Federation, as 'a man of peace and understanding'. The beaming children who received these awards and the doting parents who watched them were no doubt proud to be associated with Sam Lewis because, as I said, he has the full backing of the Teachers Federation. So who is this Sam Lewis, this Teachers Federation idol, held aloft as a symbol for our children to admire? I dare say that the parents in New South Wales would be shocked to find that Sam Lewis not only played a leading role in making the teaching profession as radical as it is in New South Wales today, but also for over 40 years was a member of the Communist Party of Australia. He was a member of the Communist Party of Australia at a time when Stalin himself was in power. Even Mr Jack Lang, in 1947, described Sam Lewis as 'a notorious communist', and 'one of the key figures in the communist hierarchy'. Apparently he became associated with the Communist Party in 1932 and was elected to leadership in 1938 and also acted on the editorial committee of the Tribune under the pseudonym of Sam Curtis. During his term he advocated such things as the abolition of Empire Day and the withdrawal of all scripture and religious instruction from school curricula. The Sam Lewis that today's left-wing Teachers Federation holds up to our children as a paragon of virtue and someone for our children to model themselves on also set up EWL, the Educational Workers League, which had as its immediate aims 'the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of . . . a Workers Socialist Commonwealth'. When the Communist Party of Australia split in the late 1960s, the radical pro-Soviet Socialist Party of Australia was formed, and this group refused to criticise the Russian invasion of Hungary and Czechoslavakia because it said these actions were necessary for peace. I do not have to tell honourable members that the venerable Sam Lewis associated himself with this group by supporting its journal, the Socialist. The Teachers Federation itself, in a booklet it published in 1976, said that Sam Lewis was 'well known for his admiration of the Soviet Union'. The communist newspaper, the Tribune said in its publication of 25 August, 1976: . . . perhaps his most original achievement was the application of Marxist method to work in a professional organisation . . . He remained to the end a dedicated supporter of the Soviet Union. So this admirer of the brutal oppression of Stalin, this man who supported the Russian occupation and killings in Hungary and Czechoslavakia in the name of peace, this man who dedicated his life to destroying our free enterprise system and to replacing it with a communist one is now held up as an idol by the Teachers Federation for our children to model themselves on. I call on the parents of New South Wales and the majority of sensible and moderate teachers whom we have to expose this Teachers Federation nonsense for what it is and to banish the Sam Lewis peace awards from our children's classrooms forever. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.18) —I rise tonight to express my concern about the unbridled growth of some sections of our community-those supported by the free enterprise people who sit on the Opposition benches-which prey on the aged and other people in our community who lack an appreciation of business concerns. I refer to the so-called free enterprise people. Very recently in a small country town-a country town which once would have been represented by the Country Party, but today, of course, that name has been forgotten-a broker went bankrupt to the tune of $234,000. He was one of the free enterprise insurance brokers, the sort of person the National Party of Australia adores. This broker, of course, under the guise of being an agent for another major insurance company, took commissions from the country people. He purported to buy insurance policies from the major insurance companies on their behalf. People came in to make claims from this broker. They expected to receive their money. But, lo and behold, of course, this free enterprise person, this doyen of the National Party, was not exactly buying the policies. He did not exactly pay the claims to the people who deserved the money. As I said, he went bankrupt to the tune of over $234,000. What was the effect on the small country town? One small business person did not receive an insurance claim to the tune of $25,000 and is now potentially facing bankruptcy. Many farmers who expected to make claims on haystacks that had been burnt no longer expect to receive the amount that they have claimed. This is the very sort of enterprise-free enterprise-that those on the Opposition benches adore. Mr Hawker —That is not free enterprise; that is crime. Mr CLEELAND —They see the unbridled growth of this system as being good. I find it is disastrous that these people- Mr Hawker —That is not free enterprise; that is dishonesty. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest to the honourable member for Wannon that he should not continue interjecting. He is developing a habit. Mr CLEELAND —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not mind that sort of unbridled comment. We know that honourable members opposite support the free enterprise system and the unbridled growth of these unskilled people who prey on the people the National Party once proudly represented. It is not just in the insurance industry that we find these problems. What about the large insurance companies that allow these brokers to use their names and to represent them in selling policies to the community? When these people go bankrupt we do not find the large insurance companies saying: 'We accept responsibility for our agents and brokers.' No, that is not the case. They run off. That is free enterprise, the wonderful system honourable members opposite support. The problem involves more than just the brokerage industry, and I must stress that there are some very fine, decent brokers and insurance people in the industry. In our community we are now faced with a massive growth in business consultants and investment advisers-more wonderful, free enterprise people. They have no professional skills, no talents, no professional associations and, quite often, no ethics. They set themselves up and say to people: 'We are experts; we can advise you on how to make money'. Of course, they do not tell them that they operate as commission agents for other people. These free enterprise people, whom honourable members opposite love to support, say: 'We will invest your money. We will look after you.' They have no skills and no talents and they are all commission agents. Their numbers in our community today are growing at an alarming rate. I suggest that honourable members should look at the yellow pages of any telephone book in any capital city to see how many pages of business consultants and investment advisers there are. It is about time this Parliament examined the position of these people. I know that there is a limit to the legislative control the Federal Parliament has. There is no control at all of trust accounts. There are no audit controls at all over the money these people receive. They are sitting there and sucking the life blood out of very small people. Mr Hand —Leeches. Mr CLEELAND —They are indeed leeches, as my friend suggested. That is free enterprise. That is the system honourable members opposite support. Mr Nehl —Come on, comrade; get on with it. Mr CLEELAND —It is nice to hear a comment. It is nice to know that we occasionally draw a bit of blood and that honourable members opposite do occasionally have a conscience, that they understand there are free enterprise people out there who are sucking the blood of the people they pretend to represent. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.23) —Tonight I wish to speak in connection with a particular problem that has arisen in relation to poverty in some of the rural industries. I mention particularly the dairy industry, the sugar industry, and others such as the rice industry, where there is actually an absence of income support for people who are suffering rural poverty. Over a period of years there has been an opportunity, in the interpretation of benefits for unemployment, for some of these people who are self-employed ruralworkers to claim eligibility for unemployment relief provided they were prepared to leave their establishment and go out to work full time in other areas. I have mentioned this to the people in the head office of the Department of Social Security in Canberra. They realise there is a problem. Of course, the problem is in the interpretation of the Act under which benefits are paid. I believe that the industry should be providing the means of income support through some hardship benefit under rural adjustment. In my experience, it is very difficult for this to operate. The whole basis for such people being denied unemployment relief is an interpretation recently made which differentiates between a person being unemployed and underemployed. If we look at the test cases being brought before the appeals tribunal we realise that there is a very fine definition but it is one which successfully precludes most farmers from being able to claim any income support in the form of unemployment benefit. Perhaps the best way I can demonstrate this is to read into Hansard a letter I have received from an industry organisation which puts these applications before both the Rural Adjustment Board and the Department of Social Security. The letter states: There appear to be three problem areas with regard to the payment of benefits to growers: 1. The Department of Social Security classifies practising growers as 'under-employed' rather than 'unemployed'. In the case of an unmarried grower hardship cases exist. I have actually taken one of these on appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to try to get a determination. In this case it all depends what the words 'commitment to his farm' mean. The letter continues: . . . details have been used by the Department to put forward a case for growers to be eligible for unemployment benefit between the end of crushing and the beginning of the next crushing season. The second problem concerns the averaging of income. The letter states: . . . At present if a grower has two farms and the farms are in different names they are not eligible to average their income between the two. For example, if a grower makes a $20,000 loss on one farm and a profit of $8,000 on another farm, the Department regards the income as $8,000 which, in the majority of cases, makes the grower ineligible for the benefit. The writer points out: . . . if both farms are in exactly the same names, averaging is allowed. If there is any differentiation between the two partnerships, averaging is not allowed. The letter continues: 3. If a grower is paid a wage or salary from the farm (according to his tax return) the Department of Social Security looks on this as a direct income and may make the grower's spouse ineligible for any benefit even though the farm itself may have made a loss. In many instances the grower's spouse can put forward a projected return for the 1984-85 tax year which may enable them to receive a benefit. It appears if such payments are referred to as 'drawings' rather than wage or salary, there is no problem. To explain this a little further, in many farmers' account books where some reward for labour has to be shown there is a debit to expenses and a credit to the loan side. However, in actual fact no money is paid in the form of a wage which can be used for living expenses. As I said, in such a case this can deny the benefit to the spouse of a farmer. The letter continues: At present in Mackay about 80 growers' wives have received unemployment benefits but only four growers' applications have been approved. The growers' approval has, to our knowledge, been based on the fact that they have undertaken off-the-farm work on a regular basis during the slack season. Approximately 50 applications have been rejected but some of these have submitted projected returns and their applications have been reconsidered . . . . Some growers' wives who have applied for unemployment benefit- and who have been ineligible- have been referred to the age pension but with the introduction of the assets test they may be ineligible for both unemployment benefit and age pension. I think the letter indicates that there is a real need for some type of income support which is positive and easily recognised and which can be quickly processed. At the moment most of the processing involves hardship on the spouse, who in the long run perhaps will not be eligible. Of course, the example which is often quoted to such people is that of the contractor who harvests the cane and who, at the end of the season when the machine is put in the shed, immediately becomes eligible, irrespective of the amount of income earned, for the unemployment benefit. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.28) —I refer to a matter raised in the House today when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was asked a question concerning current labour statistics and the economic indicators that are now coming through. In raising this matter I indicate to the House that the analysis of economic indicators and the interpretations we draw from them require an element of responsibility and an understanding of what it is all about. I refer, in our not too distant past, to the performance of those honourable members on the other side of the House when they talked up the resources boom. When we found ourselves moving into a recession they tried to deny that. They would not face up to the reality. The point I am making is that statistics have to be perused responsibly. If there are signs that give us confidence, that is the point at which we start to talk about it and bring the matter to the attention of those who need to know these things. I would like to refer to recent statistics relating to the Australian labour market produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. To me, the most encouraging statistic is the increase in the number of people employed. During the month of February-bearing in mind that is the month when school leavers come on to the market-the number of new jobs rose by 45,200. That is to be commended and it is a great sign of recovery of our current economy. As a matter of interest, in terms of employment statistics it is the third highest monthly increase on record. In light of such increases all honourable members should be commending the Government on the fact that its economic policies are working and that Australians are getting back to work again. The unemployment figure has also decreased and the Government's continuing success in this area is reflected by a decrease in the unemployment rate. The figure now stands at 8.3 per cent. We still have a long way to go, but we are working on it and those statistics indicate that the Government's policies are working well. One of the features of the decline in unemployment and the improvement in job creation lies in the advance in respect of the long term unemployed. I think that we in this House have a special responsibility to take note of such people. They have been out of the labour market for significant periods and they need to be encouraged. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the role of the Government's community employment program which has stimulated the return to the work force of people who have been unemployed for a long period. It is significant that the long term unemployment statistics show that the number of people who have been unemployed for periods of nine months or more fell by 43,000. If that is related to the increase in the number of new jobs, 45,000, there is almost a one-to-one ratio in getting our long term unemployed back into the work force. That is a very commendable achievement. A significant improvement has also occurred in the employment position of young people. There has been a substantial decline of 4 per cent in terms of the number of teenagers who are unemployed. That again is to be commended. Opposition members should recognise that the present Government's policies are good, they are working and Australia is benefiting. They should not be sniping away at our programs; they should be doing everything they can in their electorates to get people to support those programs. If one spreads these indicators wider and looks at the improvement in retail sales and in the number of motor vehicle registrations, one sees that the public sector is now responding to this Government's policies. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.33) —The honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) talked about the need for Opposition members to support the Government's policies. I want to speak tonight about what is happening in the dairy industry. We have already heard a good deal on this subject today. The honourable member has asked people to support Government policies which are affecting people and which show a genuine lack of compassion for certain sectors of the community. I would like to go back over a little bit of history in this regard. The Australian Financial Review of 12 February makes clear that the Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan was accepted by everybody in the industry in Australia, except for the Victorian Minister of Agriculture; there was only one person who was holding out at that stage against it. Even the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) supported the plan at that stage, as did all the other State Primary Industry Ministers. Then on 26 February the Federal Minister said that there was no possibility of reopening any debate on the national plan; it was impossible. Yet after the meeting on 28 February, when all concerned came to Canberra and sat down and the Minister agreed with his State counterparts, there was a last ditch effort by the Victorians to stop the drift of popularity from the Cain Government. The Federal Minister and all the rest agreed to a plan, despite the fact that two days earlier he had said that no national plan was possible and that it was a closed issue. Then on 4 March the Federal Minister said he was extremely pleased that a price war had been averted and that he would put the proposals to Cabinet. I think that type of approach by the leaders in our society is despicable. It was done for cheap political gain in the Victorian election. It was a cynical approach by the Minister. It shows that once again the factions which oppose him in Cabinet have had the effect of rolling him, which means that he has lost face with the people in primary industry in Australia. It also shows that this Government continues its attack on small business people and that it still desires to break the morale of country people and to reduce their capacity to earn. It would not be so bad if the present Government were prepared to deregulate everything in society rather than picking off a small part of it. Let us open up the wage-fixing system in Australia. Let us not have this centralised type of system. Let the workers go out and compete with each other for wages. That is what the farmers are having to do in this instance. They have to compete with each other to make their own living. Let us have all workers in Australia on the same footing. I go along with that-it would not be so bad. Let me put into the record a few figures on the dairy industry over the last ten years or so. The number of producers in Australia has been halved. The number of cows in the industry has dropped by a third. National production is down by a quarter. The number of processors in the industry has also dropped by a third. Yet due to good training, education and hard work, production by farmers has increased from 2,600 litres per cow to 3,300 litres per cow. That has been due to the hard efforts of individual farmers. Mr Chynoweth —What about greed? Mr MILES —No, not by greed. If the honourable member were in their situation of earning about $6,000 a year, it would not be greed that would drive him on to earn another $2,000 to $3,000 a year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.38) —I would like to respond to some remarks made in the House today by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) concerning the community employment program. With the arrogance of wealth, he seems unable to understand the objectives of a program that offers new possibilities for many people who have been thrown to the margin of community life through unemployment. The community employment program seeks to help build the confidence of people in their own capacities by providing them with valuable work experience. It applies to those people who do not walk into employment just because of the life they were born to. In my electorate of Phillip many CEPs are operating and tonight I want to describe three such programs with which I am particularly impressed. What is more, this information may help the honourable member for Deakin appreciate what can be achieved through the CEP. I am impressed with these programs for many reasons, but most of all because they are all achieving the objectives of CEP in that they contribute greatly to the social needs of the community; they are run in an efficient manner; and they provide worthwhile work experience and help develop effective opportunities for skilled training. The first project is the community catering service, initiated through Randwick Council, which is in my electorate. This highly successful service employs seven people at the moment. All of them were previously unemployed for some time. Two are qualified cooks and three are trained cooks. Three of the seven people are women, and one of the qualified cooks is a woman. There is a driver, who is kept busy driving the van and delivering their food and there is a business manager who is kept even busier making their business profitable. Mr Nehl —Free enterprise. Ms McHUGH —That is right. That is exactly what it is. It is hardly what the honourable member for Deakin described. The object of their service is to provide a low cost professional catering service for community groups. This they are able to achieve by subsidising their community work with business from the private sector, and the private sector is very impressed. Their rates are very competitive but most of all their food is first class, both in taste and in presentation. Already the reputation of this group has grown and demand for its culinary skills is increasing. These people have catered for many civic receptions held by the Randwick Council, including the Council's recent Sportsman of the Year Award. They catered for the Women in Local Government Conference. They are getting many requests to cater for weddings. One of the best programs they operate is the after hours cooking classes for kids, and that is becoming a very popular program. By the end of July, when the project finishes, the service hopes to be self-sufficient, not only providing a worthwhile service in the community but also satisfying employment for those seven employees. Far from being left wing radicals, these young people, because of the CEP, are now set on the road to becoming successful in the capitalist system. The second project I want to talk about is the community handyman service. This is also run through the Randwick Council. This service is available to the frail aged and to the disabled. It employs a man to carry out a wide range of small home maintenance jobs such as changing tap washers, mending broken window sashes and doing small painting jobs. For most of us the task of getting odd jobs done around the house is onerous. For those who are aged or disabled the task is often impossible. This service once again fills a great need in our community. Since it began operating 10 months ago demand for the services of the handyman has grown to such an extent that he is now carrying out an average of 40 jobs a week. This service is free; the only cost to those who need the service is the cost of the materials. The third project in our area of which I am so proud is the community secretary service. The person who is engaged as secretary is busy all the time. The service provides typing and stenographer skills free of charge for use by community groups. As most community groups have very few resources, this service is also in great demand. The disabled groups use it. The child care centres use it. Some of these groups, often administered by committees made up of parents, really need to have this sort of work done. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in the House today, the CEP has been an important initiative of the Government especially for those who are long term unemployed and those who cannot get jobs quickly. The job creation programs were never designed to solve the problems of long term unemployment but what they have done in many instances is recognise the rich human resources existing in our local communities which risk being wasted through lack of opportunity for work experience. What the Government has acknowledged is that any program for recovery must invest in human skills. It must tap those talents in the community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.44) —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a truism of parliamentary life that all of us, including the more youthful members of parliament such as yourself, get depressed by the inability of the Press to report the real news accurately. I too get depressed when I find that the southern Press has the inability to sort the wheat out from the chaff particularly when it comes to the sporting prowess of great men and women from my State of Queensland. Tonight I want to take just a few minutes of the time of the Parliament to congratulate especially four people from my home State. I refer, in order, to Mr Wally Lewis, Mr Allan Border, Mr Grant Kenny and Mr Andrew Slack. Notwithstanding the comments in the southern Press, particularly the Sydney Press, Mr Wally Lewis is easily the most outstanding rugby league football player in the world. His prowess is unexcelled. His feats are legendary. I also say in passing that the real reason why Wally Lewis is the greatest rugby league footballer in the world is that he learnt the fundamentals of the game by being a member of the Australian junior rugby union football team which toured England in 1977. He is the Australian rugby league captain. I now turn to Mr Allan Border. It is true that during the last season the standard of Australian cricket was at an abysmally low level. It was not until the selectors and the Australian Cricket Board finally did away with its prejudices and realised that Queensland does produce champions that it sacked a Western Australian and appointed Allan Border captain of the Australian cricket team and we started to win. I am glad that honourable members opposite agree with me on this issue. I offer to Allan Border my congratulations and best wishes for a successful English tour. I now come to Grant Kenny who, amongst many splendid feats, including being a film and television star, was also captain of the Australian surf lifesaving team. I reserve my final comments for a great Australian, a man who, notwithstanding enormous pressures placed upon him, has still remained a gentleman. I refer to Andrew Slack, who last Sunday played his last game of the greatest game of all-rugby union. I wish to pay tribute to Andrew Slack, whose name, early in his career, was described by the southern Press as being appropriate. It was stated that he was a slack footballer. I am glad to have the opportunity in this Parliament to ram those words down the throats of those bad members from the south and to indicate to all that Andrew Slack, a Queenslander born and bred, who learnt his rugby union football in Queensland, led the Wallabies on a grand slam victory over England at Twickenham, Ireland at Landsdown Road, Wales at Cardiff Arms Park and Scotland at Murrayfield. That feat has never before been achieved by a team of Wallabies. Those of us who have seen Andrew Slack play are always amazed at his ability. I am always unsure whether I am looking at Comaneci, the great gymnast, at the grace, beauty and dedication of Glynis Nunn, at the strength of Dean Lukin or at the sheer artistry of the great tennis players of the world. Andrew Slack has been a great example. He is a man who led through ability. He first learnt to obey so that later on he could command. I wish Andrew Slack every possible success in his retirement. I hope that his great achievements on the football arenas of the world are but the stepping stone to greater achievements as he moves through his life. I salute him as a gentleman. I acknowledge his great prowess as a rugby union player but, above all, I thank Andrew Slack for the sheer artistry of his game and for the fact that he gave so much joy to us. He was a true man in a great, true and noble sport. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(11.49) —It is not often that a Labor member of this Parliament can come into the House and sincerely praise the actions of the Ministers and supporters of the former Fraser Government. I come here tonight with the express purpose of conferring upon that former Government and certain of its members accolades of praise for their conduct in relation to a piece of current legislation that was a product of the Fraser years. I refer in particular to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. In my contribution in this limited time tonight, I remind the House that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has put forward a preferred model for Commonwealth action in relation to Aboriginal land rights. He has, in fact, recognised that there will be public debate in relation to that preferred model. I am quite sure that he recognises that members of his own Party have as much legitimate right to participate in that debate as do members of the wider community. During my rather brief contribution tonight, I would ask that honourable members of the Opposition in their dealings with this Aboriginal land rights issue go back to the debates of 1976 to see what was said by members of their parties. I first of all refer to the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, who said on 17 November: . . . the passage of legislation . . . in the Northern Territory will be a most significant and progressive step in the social and political history of this country. That is what Ian Viner said. Kevin Cairns, the former Liberal Party member for Lilley, said that the Government knows that the holding of land is crucially important to those who are economically and socially depressed. He said that he could only compare the introduction of the legislation with one other experience in Australian life, and that was the introduction of industrial legislation in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. That was not the Labor view; that was the view of a Liberal member of the Fraser Government. In relation to the question of mining, Mr Viner said on 17 November: The integrity of which the honourable member speaks in relation to mining will, of course, be provided through the veto power which came under such attack from certain quarters within the community but which was maintained by the Government intact for the very good reason that we sought to maintain the integrity of Aboriginal ownership in the Aboriginal sense of what is their land. Mr Calder, the National Party member for the Northern Territory, said that he supported the introduction of Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. He stated: This Bill, it is hoped, will give the Northern Territory Aborigines the ability to practice their law and traditions on their own land in their own manner. This is good. I am sure that all Territorians and Australians will be pleased this has come about. That well known radical of the Liberal Party, Senator Baume, also contributed to the debate. Honourable members who sometimes accuse members on this side of the House of being bleeding hearts and persons of commitment and compassion should look at what Senator Baume said. He stated: I believe that in most parliaments there are very few moments which are as important as this one. We are dealing here with an issue which is one of national conscience as well as being a particular issue involving land rights for the Aboriginal people. He went on at great length to talk about the moral principles involved in the Bill. Senator Chaney, another well known radical not known for his embracing of red ragging socialist causes, said: This is probably the most significant item that I have seen the Senate deal with. I ask members of the Opposition to listen to what Senator Chaney then said because he was right in 1976 and he would be right now if he said the same thing: I believe that it is an unfortunate by-product of Party politics in Australia that the debate tends to obscure the fact that in measures such as this there is a large degree of bipartisan support which reflects the bipartisan support that exists in the community itself for certain sorts of social progress. I conclude by saying that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs would do well to listen to the words of Senator Chaney. I believe that while the preferred model is open to criticism, I ask the shadow Minister to deal with this matter with integrity and rather than take a negative and obstructive attitude, that he be constructive in his approach on this matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.54) —Last week I made a speech in the adjournment debate on the effects of the assets test. I noticed yesterday that in a speech the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) attempted in a rather lamentable effort to defend the assets test and he accused me of misrepresenting what is happening. I reiterate for the benefit of those who have not got the message that the assets test is causing considerable hardship and a lot of heartburn to many small farmers, and in particular soldier settlers. The case I was quoting-I am only quoting one of a dozen or more that are all similar-is a soldier settler who is on the verge of retiring. I make that point to the honourable member for McMillan who I am glad to see is again present in the House. In this case there is a son working on the farm. As is often pointed out to me, the son generally works for well below the minimum wage in the belief that the parents will hand the property on. The situation is that the farm is not earning enough income for two families. In the mail today I received news of one farmer whose average income over the last eight years was $3,000 a year. We have the situation where people have a property valued at around $200,000-some a little less-and when they add the value of the house on it-at the most $50,000-it gives them a total asset of about $250,000. The honourable member for McMillan is talking about showing compassion, yet he agrees that these people should not receive a pension. Let us compare that situation with a city couple. There are people in the better parts of Sydney or Melbourne who have houses worth $200,000 and in some cases worth $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000. Their other assets might total anything up to $50,000, so their assets are at least equal to and in many cases considerably more than those of this soldier settler farmer and his wife. Yet, under this assets test legislation they can still qualify for a full pension. The honourable member for McMillan is talking about this assets test showing compassion, being fair and showing concern for these people. I do not know what he is going to say to the small farmers in his electorate because I think he is selling them out very short. We have a situation in which there is a big difference. The assets test is totally inequitable because it exempts the family home. It leads to a situation in which people in the city who have assets at least equal to and often greater than those of the farmer still receive a pension whereas a person in the country with similar assets or fewer assets is being completely wiped out. As I pointed out to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, the end result of all this is going to be that these small farmers-- Mr Cadman —Why does he hate farmers? Mr HAWKER —I agree. Why does he hate farmers? I would like to know that too. These small farmers will be forced into a position where they will have to sell their properties and no doubt, being fairly prudent people, they will do what their city counterparts are doing. They will go and buy a decent house in the city so that they will then qualify for the pension. What is going to happen to their son or daughter who wants to carry on the business. Mr Nehl —They will be forced on to the dole. Mr HAWKER —They will be forced on to the dole. In these cases the pensions assets test will not save the Government or the taxpayers of Australia any money. In fact, it is going to cost money. We are not just talking about the cost to the taxpayers. There is the considerable worry and heartache that these people are going to suffer, having worked throughout their lives in very frugal circumstances. 'Frugal' is the word that has been mentioned in these letters many times. They have lived very frugal lives. Now they find that all their plans are just being thrown out the window by a government showing absolutely no concern for what they have done. The honourable member for McMillan raises the word 'dishonesty' in relation to this matter. There is no question of these people being dishonest. They are honest taxpayers, when they have enough income to pay tax, which is often not the case, and they have been severely penalised because they live in the country and for no other reason. In talking to people in the Department of Social Security reference was made also to the question of hardship which the Minister keeps talking about. At the moment it seems that the Department has not issued instructions to its officers on how to administer this hardship matter, so that people in the Department are finding that they can offer no assistance to people on the grounds of hardship. It is causing officers of the Department of Social Security considerable heartache because they do not like people ringing up and breaking down on the telephone. They cannot do anything to help them and I think it is up to the Government to work this out too. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to reconstitute the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, and for related purposes. Mr West to 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 new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia in Kent Street, Sydney. Mr West to 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 new Commonwealth Offices at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the National Welfare Fund Act 1943, and for related purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to financial assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory in connection with the provision of supported accommodation services and related support services. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 March 1985: Fisheries Act-Notice, No. 138. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Determination pursuant to sub-section 6A (3) fixing wholesale price of liquefied petroleum gas, dated 22 March 1985. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86E, dated 22 March 1985.