Thursday, 28 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Ms Jakobsen: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. upon which Mr Sinclair had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the address: ', but the House is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that: (1) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western Alliance will be preserved and strengthened following- (a) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the U.S. for its testing of the MX missile, and (b) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (2) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by- (a) record government taxation and spending; (b) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets; (c) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry; (d) the level of public debt repayments; and (e) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability, and (3) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay'. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.02) —Mr Speaker, as you would remember, when last we were discussing this issue I was talking in finality in my speech about taxation reform. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Young) whether he could identify the way of this morning's proceedings. I understood we were immediately going to start on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. Mr Young —Be patient. Mr Sinclair —I am always patient but could the Minister please explain. Mr Young —Shortly. You have a very competent government. Just be patient. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House has answered that it will be introduced shortly. I call the honourable member for Perth. Dr CHARLESWORTH —As I mentioned, when the debate was interrupted on Monday I was discussing the Government's proposals for taxation reform. During the election campaign this issue was very heavily canvassed throughout the electorate and the Government at the time enunciated a nine-point tax review plan. I believe that the principles of that nine-point proposal should be expounded today in this House. The first of those was that there be no increase in the overall tax burden as measured as a share of Commonwealth tax revenue in gross domestic product. The second of the principles enunciated by the Australian Labor Party during the election campaign was that we continue the process which had been begun by this Government to provide further cuts in personal income tax. I think that is something that would be endorsed by all members of this place. The third principle was that the suggested taxation changes contribute to the smashing of tax avoidance and evasion, and that is something that is being pursued very thoroughly by all members on this side of the House. The fourth and fifth principles were that the system which was to be instituted be simple, fairer and indeed much more progressive than that which we presently find ourselves with. The sixth principle was that the suggested tax reform not disadvantage the recipients of welfare and reduce and remove poverty tracts. The seventh principle, and perhaps one of the most important, was that it is important that in any reform package which includes indirect taxes interested groups in the community have an opportunity to respond so that there should be no regressive nature in that tax package. The eighth principle was that we provide the best possible climate for investment growth and employment. I think it is understood by both sides of the House that the incentive aspects of the tax policy are very important. The latest aspect of our proposal was that whatever program and package we came up with there should be widespread community support for it. Indeed, in this regard we see the sharp contrast between the Opposition and ourselves. The Opposition for a long time, as it did during the election campaign, has tried to exclude a number of options. Indeed, members of the Opposition, in their very narrow way, believe that tax should be determined as they see it and that the Australian community should not be given the opportunity to have a say in this issue. When one looks at the Opposition's record on tax the dishonesty of these people-the free traders, the deregulators and the champions of enterprise-can be firmly established. They are the people who, in 1977, offered a fistful of dollars and then took them away. They are the people who had the opportunity, with their oil parity pricing windfall of $3 billion, to restructure taxation in this country and they did not take the opportunity. They are the people who said that they would institute indexation but could not deliver it. Indeed, under their government the taxation avoidance industry exploded in this country. I have some sympathy for the view of honourable members opposite on retrospective taxation. But, unfortunately, when I look at the fact that they had the opportunity to act much earlier and did not take that chance, my sympathy dissolves. They did not act; they had the chance to act and they failed. It is not just me who is saying this. Indeed, the shadow Attorney-General a couple of weeks ago in Brisbane said that they had 'shirked their responsibility'. I think it would be very difficult for many members of this House to have sympathy for them when they look at their record. They cannot be believed. When one looks at presenting a balanced approach to the management of financial policy one cannot look at the record of our opponents with a great deal of sympathy. In our time in office we have endeavoured to kick-start the economy. Now that private investment has picked up, and with our acceptance of the trilogy, I believe this Government is committed to expenditure restraint. We are committed to funding those policies in education, housing and welfare which must not be ignored. Indeed, we are committed to a policy that will, hopefully-I feel confident about this-reverse the trend of youth unemployment which was started by our opponents. This Government has a good record. Indeed, its record is very good. It was returned to continue its work. My colleagues and I look forward to doing so over the next three years. Our opponents may posture piously. They may endeavour, as they have done in the past, to create division and fear within the community and they may talk continually about gloom and doom, but to do so will not serve this place or the interests of Australians well. For sound economic management the Australian community will look forward to the Australian Labor Party in the future providing that sort of leadership which is most necessary. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.08) —Mr Speaker, firstly, I express to you my personal congratulations and the congratulations of the people I represent. I am sure that if those people were in this House they would be delighted to see you again occupying the position you occupy. The Governor-General certainly gave a detailed account and a prediction as to what would be the pattern of government by the incumbents. However, no reference was made to the debit side of the book. Life patterns of this nation which earned us the respect of the world are being dismantled. This Government shall stand condemned before God and man for what has been either direct support for the many strange and sick influences that have penetrated deeply into our society or the condoning of the decimation of our standards by a blind-eye attitude. However, as to the vitality of this nation, which is so dependent on its rural industries, the hostility-indeed, the vitriolic detestation-which the majority of people in the Australian Labor Party have for those associated with rural industries has reached a point where a deep and possibly irreversible catastrophe could bring this nation and its people to their knees. No where is this more evident than in the sugar and dairy industries. Much has been said over the last few days clearly showing how destructive are the new dairy industry proposals introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government. In fact, industry spokesmen have declared loud and clear that if this plan proceeds it will virtually demolish the industry. I turn to what could well prove to be one of Australia's most notable calamities-the decline of the sugar industry. There is a brutal attitude, almost an attitude of humour, from both the Minister for Primary Industry and our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). What did the Prime Minister say? He told the sugar farmers to go and grow vegetables. Honourable members know that that shows a deep and profound concern for this calamitous situation. I would like to impress on this House and this nation one or two basic facts relating to the people involved in the present critical situation in the sugar industry. It is a crisis for hundreds of sugar growers and those dependent on them. It could well prove to be an economic disaster for this country. Here and now let me firmly refute statements made by misinformed people who pontificate on the alleged inefficiency of the sugar producers. I say loud and clear that although there may be the odd cane grower who has not measured up to the standard in the conduct of his farm operations, the sugar industry is respected for its high degree of efficiency and management. I have heard time and again the sugar industry being presented as an example of efficiency and as an example of an industry with deep concern for its own members and those dependent on them. The important fact is that it shows deep concern for those who are dependent on it. When we had the great crisis in the wool and cattle industries wool and cattle farmers asked: 'Why haven't we got a similar efficient organisation such as the sugar industry has?' The sugar industry is respected for its high degree of efficiency and management, not only here in Australia; it also has a splendid reputation overseas where it is frequently quoted as an example of industry efficiency and management at its best. The Australian sugar industry is located principally along the coast of Queensland and on the northern coast of New South Wales. Currently there are 29 sugar milling districts in Queensland and three in northern New South Wales. The Queensland sugar district is serviced by the relatively large centres of Cairns, Innisfail, Tully, Ingham, Burdekin, Proserpine, Mackay, Bundaberg and Nambour. I do not like to go into statistics; in fact, I totally detest reading a speech, but some of these basic facts are important. I mention those towns because the lights could well go out in those towns. They could face an immeasurable crisis. In 1984 Queensland harvested 24 million tonnes of cane for a sugar make of 3.3m tonnes. The three New South Wales areas harvested 1.6 million tonnes of cane for 200,000 tonnes of sugar. Over the last 20 years the Australian industry has increased its peak production targets from 1.33 million tonnes to around 3.3 million tonnes of sugar, an increase of some 150 per cent. From that encouraging, exhilarating situation we have the gloomy situation that exists today. This achievement resulted in more settlement and added resources in north Queensland coastal areas which meant that the whole of Australia began to vibrate more because of the activities of this industry. It meant valuable export earnings for all Australians. Production to mid-1960 was safely covered by price and outlet with supply to the domestic market and other countries under the British Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The industry expanded in mid-1960 and began to supply other world markets, in particular Japan, Europe and the United States of America which meant the introduction of a large number of new growers. Again, this was an exciting development. Some of those farmers have gone, some are still with us. At the end of 1960 there was a brief but significant collapse in price. The price dropped as low as $125 a tonne. Things were very different in those days-$125 was not too bad. This required the industry to provide loan funds to be repaid over 10 years at an all up repayment and interest cost of $30m. The industry further expanded in the mid-1970s to cater for increased operations and overseas sales. There was a sudden fall off in price in the latter part of the 1970s, quickly followed by a reverse cycle with very high prices in 1980 and 1981. These dry old statistics I am quoting have a target. They indicate that there has been a rise and fall, that there have been gloomy times, but they have recovered. They have recovered because there was a government in office that was determined that they should recover. That government had an intense desire to set this industry back in business. A further limited expansion took place in 1981, with most areas increasing production in 1981 and into 1982. It is so far a fairly rosy story. Then came the European Economic Community and changes in the world profit of sugar. They say that a four-letter word is about the ugliest word we come into contact with, but when we see the very vitals of our rural industries in Australia being decimated, I think the ugliest word around is EEC. The EEC, since the late 1970s when it was a net importer, has become a large exporter of around four million plus tonnes of sugar. This resulted from the high subsidisation of its production under its common agricultural policy. In 1984 the subsidy was $1100m, or $500 per tonne of sugar. The free market price was $104 per tonne. Two lesser importing countries have increased production to provide for self-sufficiency. There is an oversupply in the free world market. As a consequence of this oversupply the world free market sugar price plummeted, with a drop of 70 per cent in the 1980 to 1984 period. Home consumption sales are the same now as 10 years ago. There has been some loss in recent times due to the anti-sugar attitude. I will discuss that anti-sugar attitude now. I recently decided I would have a thorough check up. I think we all do that from time to time. I attended a very, very reputable doctor, although I will not mention his name for ethical reasons. He said: 'Look, I would like to tell the people of Australia that this anti-sugar nonsense should cease and cease immediately. Everything, if you do not take it in moderation, causes problems, but take this anti-sugar attitude. Everything you look at these days is labelled ''no sugar added''. In many cases the fact that there is no sugar added is detrimental to the health of our people'. Home consumption sales are the same as 10 years ago. Export markets are now at 80 per cent of Australian production. The International Sugar Agreement negotiations failed in June 1984. We had no John McEwen or Doug Anthony over there, so they failed. They failed as far as Australia is concerned because there was not that intense desire to see a great industry survive, to see international agreement orientated to our other trade associations with the likes of Japan. What did John McEwen say years ago? He said: 'Okay, if you are going to insist on this sugar agreement, which disadvantages my country, we do not really need to bring Japanese cars to our country. We will have a look at the whole thing when I get back home.' Within 24 hours the agreement was renegotiated to our advantage. That is the sort of intense and determined attitude which must permeate these international discussions if they are going to be effective. Related to the average sugar content in cane, the 1981 high would have given a cane price of $24.18. The projected price for 1986 is a cane price to the grower of $15.29 per tonne at that level of sugar-a drop of 27 per cent. The situation, when one examines these figures, boils down to the fact that an abundance of sugar at low prices is available. The industry has attempted to counter the problems by containing costs as best it can. I make this point clearly and decisively: People in rural industries, whether it be the tobacco industry, the cattle industry, the wool industry-these great industries on which Australia permanently depends; not the come and go industries but the industries which are producing all the time-cannot control their costs. If a shirt manufacturer's costs increase he can add $1, $2 or whatever to the price of his shirts. However, it is not possible to increase prices in the rural industries. They are at the mercy of international agreements and demands. So the story goes. Sugar producers provide Australian consumers with a continuous and ample supply at more than competitive prices. The industry subsidises when prices are high, and the consumer when prices are low. Has the industry earned government support? Mr Hunt —Yes. Mr KATTER —Of course it has. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir, says: 'Yes'. It is a decisive yes. These people, like so many other people in rural industries, have contributed in areas where one sweats one's guts out. This applies to most of our rural industries. The sugar industry has contributed vastly to Australia's economy. I am indulging in a good deal of rhetoric, but Queensland cane growers placed before the Minister for Primary Industry in November 1984 a submission for a guaranteed minimum average price scheme for the 1985-86 season, or an underpinned price as distinct from an underwritten price. Growers showed determination in this regard by travelling en masse to the cane growers' rally in Brisbane on 22 November 1984. Mr Hunt —It was a big rally. Mr KATTER —It was a big rally. This rally was to coincide with the visit by the Prime Minister. There is to be a dialogue between the Queensland Premier and the Prime Minister this month about assistance to the whole industry. There has been national rationalisation in the industry. The number of growers is declining and small mills are disappearing, sometimes being amalgamated with larger ones. The trend to be bigger in an effort to survive may be necessary these days, but I am one who likes to see the sons and grandsons of our accredited landholders and producers carry on. They are not able to do this if one by one they drop out and the properties fall under the control of the larger people. Mr Adermann —This is what has happened. Mr KATTER —Of course. The loss of export income in the 1983 season was $600m. The final prices for the 1984 crop will not be declared until late June 1985. Of course, this is only six months behind. If the industry does in fact achieve the low prices referred to and projected in the statistics previously quoted, the following result can be expected, and I ask honourable members to note it well: In 1986-87 those remaining producers will abandon growing and leave a collapsed industry. What sort of a prospect is that for this nation? Never mind about the towns in respect of which I suggested the lights would go out. I am not taking a dramatic sort of approach to this matter. What I am saying is absolutely factual. Mill and port assets will be idle. We will see the economic collapse of almost every sugar town in Australia, from Grafton to Mossman. Honourable members might think I am exaggerating, but I can go into this matter in much greater detail. My Deputy Leader has presented to this House a great deal of factual evidence not only in regard to this industry but also in regard to the absolute calamity that is facing the dairy industry. What is infuriating is the sort of statement that suggests that we are pressing the button and crying 'calamity'. If honourable members opposite think that we are doing that they should talk to the women, the wives of the farmers. They should talk to one lady with five or six children, who for the last eight years has struggled to keep a farm going by getting out into the fields herself. Honourable members opposite should talk to third and fourth generation cane farmers who now have to pack up and get out. Maybe they can become taxi drivers or something like that. I say to honourable members opposite that they should face that prospect. They live in the comfort of their cities and collect their $50,000 or $60,000 a year as members of parliament. They should face up to that problem. They do not care. That is their problem. They have no feeling for the people who are producing the fundamental and basic wealth of this nation. They stand condemned before God and man for their brutal attitudes. Honourable members opposite laugh at farmers' corner. Farmers' corner has kept this nation going for 200 years. Honourable members opposite should remember that this nation was originally founded on the wool industry. Let me get back to the sugar industry. I do not have much time left. In this difficult area one major issue emerges and that is the plight of the ordinary worker. Honourable members opposite are supposed to be considerate towards workers. Their concern seems to be about whether the workers are members of a union which can keep them in office. I have a summary of the employment difficulties inevitably associated with the decline in the sugar industry. I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard. It merely contains statistics on the employment situation. Mr Barry Jones —I have not seen it, but I have no objection. Mr KATTER —The Minister may come and have a look at it. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member-- Mr KATTER —The Minister is a very fair man. He could not possibly object to this being incorporated. Mr SPEAKER —But the Speaker may object because of the ruling that written words are not to be incorporated in Hansard. If it is a table, it may be appropriate. Mr Barry Jones —It is written. Mr SPEAKER —I have now seen the material and it is outside the type of material which may be incorporated in Hansard. This is consistent with previous rulings. Mr KATTER —I accept the ruling of the House. I will deal with this matter briefly. I had hoped that that document would be incorporated in Hansard. I thought it was in the national interest. Apparently it is not considered to be so. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not reflect on the Chair. The refusal for incorporation was made because of the firm rules that have been laid down by my predecessor and maintained by me. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I seek leave to move an extension of time for the honourable member for Kennedy. Government members-No. Mr SPEAKER —I think it is obvious from the response that that request would not be accepted. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.28) —I must confess to the House that a very hard act to follow is that of the Arthur Scargill of the farmers, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). I wish first of all to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election. I apologise that my congratulations are belated but it has taken me some time to get to the top of the list of speakers. I wish particularly to congratulate the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) on her re-election as Madam Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. She sets a great example for all women not only in this Parliament but throughout Australia. I wish to congratulate my colleagues on their election to Parliament and particularly the new members of parliament on their maiden speeches. I make particular reference to the points that my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), raised in his maiden speech, particularly his reference to movements towards territorial government in the Australian Capital Territory. I have noted the change in the composition of this Parliament over the years. I first became a member of this House in 1980. I recall that in those days I was one of the youngest members of the House. As I look around the House now-not particularly at this moment-I find that I have aged considerably. Mr Leo McLeay —But gracefully. Mrs KELLY —In those days there were only a couple of members under the age of 35. These days, I understand that although the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) is still the baby of the House there are at least 15 members who are under the age of 35. I think that is definitely a move in the right direction because we are starting to get a parliament which is much more representative. (Quorum formed) I presume that the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) was a little disturbed by my reference only to members of parliament who are under the age of 35. Before he drew attention to the state of the House I was discussing the changing composition of this Parliament over the years since I became a member in 1980. I was saying that when I first joined the Parliament I was one of the youngest members of this House. Although I think I have aged gracefully in this House, I am pleased to see that a large number of members now are under the age of 35, because it is important that we have a Parliament that is truly representative of our community. The honourable member for Barton is still the baby of the House, but there are many members who are close to him in age, such as the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). Particularly in this International Year of Youth, I think it is a great tribute to the Australian Labor Party that we return to this House so many younger members of Parliament. I am still concerned to see that there are not sufficient women in this House. As the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) leaves the chamber, I particularly congratulate her on her election to this House. Also I congratulate the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) in the Opposition ranks. The Opposition has waited a very long time to have a woman member on its benches in this House. I congratulate her on joining the ranks of the Opposition here. It is important that this Parliament continue this trend to broadly represent our community, because there is no doubt that the policies which we debate must reflect those interests. They can do so only when we have a broadly representative parliament. That brings me to the issue I would like to discuss today-that is, the decision by the Government to have a drugs summit. The Governor-General, in his address, stated: Moves will be made soon to introduce a national campaign against drug abuse. I of course endorse that statement, as I consider it to be vitally important that all Australians recognise the symptoms of drug abuse and addiction, as well as be provided with a point of contact for further information. But in endorsing a national action, I make a strong plea that the people of the Canberra region be included in that national campaign and not be excluded, as we have been in the recent past, from national campaigns against drug abuse. A recent survey of drug and exercise habits was conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission. (Quorum formed) The honourable member for Indi seems determined to give me an audience for my speech. I notice that Opposition members are not very interested in the issue of drug abuse. Mr Leo McLeay —That's because they're all dopes. Mrs KELLY —I do not think that interjection should be replied to. In a recent survey of drug and exercise habits conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission, the people of Canberra were exposed as heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and heavy exercisers. In other words, the people of Canberra are not very different from other Australians. Honourable members interjecting- Mrs KELLY —Do not people in other parts of Australia exercise, drink or smoke? The point is that the problems in Canberra are the same as those in the rest of Australia. What we want is our fair share of the money that has been distributed through the States to deal with the drug problem in Australia. The position is no better in the illegal drug scene in Canberra. While Canberra is not the drug capital of Australia, despite the coverage this issue has been given in the Sydney Morning Herald, we do have, we estimate, about 1,000 heroin users. This is a guesstimate figure because we in Canberra share the national problem of having very little information on the extent of illegal drug use. Because of the widespread concern in our community about what is clearly a widespread problem, I have just taken a delegation to see the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to discuss with him the situation in Canberra so that when he attends the drug summit he can take with him the information we have provided about the situation in Canberra. The major recommendations of that group were that the Australian Capital Territory should have a drug and alcohol authority to administer, fund and accredit drug and alcohol services in the region and that services and facilities in the Australian Capital Territory be upgraded to put them on a par with other Territories and States. I am sure that my colleagues who are here today will really assist me in lobbying the Cabinet to ensure that the Australian Capital Territory gets its fair share. Government members-Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —I have never before seen so much enthusiasm for the Australian Capital Territory demonstrated in this Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It is very nice to see the House in such an hilarious mood, but I think it is a bit difficult for the honourable member for Canberra. Mrs KELLY —Thank you very much for that support, Madam Deputy Speaker. Another serious point which applies not just to the Australian Capital Territory but across Australia is that drug and alcohol workers must have some recognised training. Those in contact with addicts-lawyers, doctors, welfare workers, school counsellors and social workers-must have some in-service training so that they can recognise the problems and refer clients if necessary. This is a problem not just for Canberra; this is an Australia-wide problem. These people have no training at all to recognise the problems. It was very interesting, when I was discussing this matter with some of the magistrates from the courts here, that they were astounded to find the problems that existed in this town. Although they had been dealing with them from the Bench, they had no idea that there was so little back-up support for these problems in Canberra. The second issue I wish to address is the proposal for tax reform. As a representative from an electorate which currently contributes more per capita to the taxation coffers than does any other electorate in Australia, I, and the electors of Canberra, welcome this long-awaited reform of the taxation system. The people of Canberra mainly are public servants, all pay as you earn taxpayers, so they are the ones who have been bearing the brunt of the taxation contribution over the years. So, we welcome this reform. However, in the few moments I have to address this issue, I want to refer to the impact of tax reform on women. Women have much to gain from tax reform which improves equity and efficiency. Women are dependent on government services and assistance to a much greater extent than are men. A taxation system that is inefficient fails to provide revenue for an adequate level of such services. Even in the context of not increasing the overall tax burden, a tax system which enables efficient collection of tax from those in a position to pay allows for a much fairer distribution of the tax burden, to the advantage of women. It is essential on equity and efficiency criteria that the individual remain the unit for personal income tax. This is the trend in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and it is based on sound reasons. For example, where the earned income of spouses is aggregated for tax purposes, it imposes very high tax rates on secondary earners, usually women. The individual unit also avoids the problems associated with defining the household for taxation purposes. That is difficult, as only 20 per cent of Australian households currently comprise single income couples with dependent children. Also, empirical studies from overseas indicate that family unit tax discourages married women from entering the work force. However, while Australia retains the individual as the basic unit of tax, income splitting remains a major problem, especially as a result of the High Court of Australia decision in the Everett case in 1980. This problem must be addressed when we are looking at any tax reform package. One issue that has received attention in the tax debate is that of tax deductibility for child care. I do not support this because it would create its own problems in terms of equity, efficiency and effective redistribution. It would be more appropriate to direct resources into support for the children's services program, which is moving quickly towards the Government's promise of 20,000 new child care places in the next three years. Every child who secures a place in a Commonwealth funded child care system receives a subsidy of between $1,560 and $2,080 per annum. In addition, the Government has a system of fee relief for those on low incomes. I feel that is a much more efficient way of administering the taxation dollar. In other words, the Government is working towards the provision of affordable high quality child care. We may debate in this House whether we are moving quickly enough towards that. I am sure everyone in this House would want more facilities available for child care throughout Australia, but I do not think the way to do that is to have tax deductibility for child care. The Governor-General, in his Speech, stated that the raising of the status of women in all parts of our society would remain at the forefront of the Government's policy objectives. I suggest that one excellent way of raising the status of women is through reform of the taxation system, with special reference to the special needs of women. I thank the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.46) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on attaining your high position and ask you to extend to Mr Speaker my personal congratulations too on his re-election to that exalted position. While I am not technically making a maiden speech, I certainly am making a maiden speech in terms of the new electorate which I represent. It is an interesting electorate on the outskirts of Brisbane, a microcosm of all the problems that I suppose are faced by all Australians. It is interesting too that the electorate of Fadden holds the distinction of having three different members in three years. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) and I have all represented that constituency, but I can assure the House that I will be the member for a long time and the good folk of Fadden can certainly be made aware of the fact that they will have a long- serving member. I said that the electorate of Fadden was a microcosm of Australian society because that electorate spreads across the full spectrum of society. In that respect it is a most interesting electorate to represent. I previously represented, in my old seat of Bowman, about one-third of the people who now fall into my new constituency. I suppose it is interesting to come back into this House after an absence of some 20 months or so after a time of refreshment, which I think is necessary at some stage for all members of this Parliament. It is an opportunity for people to go out into the world and find out what the real world is all about. In that respect I have thoroughly enjoyed my enforced exile from the House of Representatives. It is interesting to go back to 2 March 1976 when I did in fact make my maiden speech to this House. I concluded that speech by saying these words: As a newly elected member to this House I am fully aware of the position I hold in helping to shape the events of the nation and of society. Already in my brief term of office I have seen situations that reflect little justice for those underprivileged sections of my electorate that cruelly perpetuate depressed environments. They make me realise how we can tend to overexaggerate the benefits of our society. Such situations can very easily emotionally blind wise judgments. I intend to carry out my duties with a feeling of responsibility but with a sense of proportion. I believe one should have a passionate devotion to a cause, but I am aware that unless that passion is guided by a sense of responsibility it can be wasteful and indeed harmful to society. I said then that I was idealistic but I hoped that my stay in the House would not breed that cynicism which had become prevalent of late. I suppose those words are equally true some nine years later. I suppose too that that is my sense of responsibility and my sense of dedication to the job ahead of me in representing the people of Fadden. There is no doubt that in our society there are some very great worries. In the electorate of Fadden, as across Australia, there is no doubt that the assets test is still causing some very great difficulties for the aged. It is interesting to note that some 50,000 of our aged are now suffering the effects of that assets test. One would hope that the Government would show some more compassion to those people who have worked hard and made sure that they saved for their old age. They should not now be penalised and put in this situation that they face. There are other areas too. The whole issue of taxation, which is the subject of wide-ranging debate across our society, is another matter which I think is of concern to all Australians, but most particularly to those middle income Australians, the young married couples who have children, who are working hard to make sure that their family receives the best. One hopes that any changes in the taxation system will bring in that sense of equity for those people who are really the backbone of Australia, who are working so hard to bring up their families in an environment which we should all be able to enjoy. During the last 20 months I have worked in the tourist industry. It was interesting to hear the maiden speeches of the new members of this Parliament because most of them referred to the tourist attractions in their electorates. It is interesting now to reflect on the situation in 1975 in this House, when even the Treasury did not acknowledge tourism as an industry in itself. I am glad that that attitude has changed, inasmuch as there is a recognition abroad in our community that tourism is very much a major industry, an industry which in fact is bigger than the footwear, clothing and motor vehicle industries combined. It is contributing to the gross domestic product as much as the mining industry and is, in fact, fast becoming the greatest employer in this nation. That latter point is a very salient one because at a time when we are spending some very large amounts of money on Commonwealth employment programs it is interesting to see that it is tourism more than any other industry that has the capacity to provide, and is providing, real jobs rather than artificial jobs in our community. In my home State of Queensland at the moment there are no fewer than 92,000 people working in the tourist industry. That is more than double the figure of just five years ago. That will give honourable members an indication of the potential we have to provide meaningful jobs for the whole spectrum of our society. Jobs for young people, for the old and for women are all in that industry if we get it right. Successive governments, going back to the time when Sir Phillip Lynch was Minister responsible, have gradually been looking at the aspects of tourism which can help in an employment sense. I think this Government should be congratulated for the amount of money it is spending in promoting tourism to Australia. But I also think it should be very careful to get the format right and make sure the money it spends overseas is spent wisely. It will be interesting to see what the real result of the Paul Hogan campaign is when the figures are released a little later this year. It is true that we have spent many millions of dollars in the United States of America on promoting Australia as a destination. It is true that there have been literally hundreds of thousands of inquiries by residents of the United States wanting to visit Australia, but the proof will certainly be in the pudding; the proof will be if those people actually come. I worry about some of the aspects of the operation of the Australian Tourist Commission because it seems evident to me that maybe we are not really getting the real results we should out of spending so much money on such a campaign. For example, most of that money was spent in the area of California and the rest of the West Coast of the United States. That area has always been a prime tourist market, especially for northern Europe and South America. But if honourable members look at the figures, the biggest potential market Australia has is the central west of the United States. It is there where the biggest money is, it is there where the Australian Tourist Commission is not represented and it is there that we frankly have not spent a brass razoo. I think we should be looking at the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission to make sure we cover all those areas. If we look at the expenditure pattern of international tourists I wonder whether the Australian Tourist Commission has done the right thing in projecting so much of its concentration into that North American market. The latest figures I have available indicate that the average Australian resident tourist travelling around Australia spends about $34 per head, per day. The New Zealanders are still our biggest market and they spend about $43 per head per day. The Americans come in at $68 per head per day. But if we look at, for example, the Japanese market, the average expenditure of a Japanese tourist in Australia at the moment is $79.91 per head per day. If one starts looking into the northern European market one sees that the Scandinavians spend $92 per head per day, the Swiss spend $94 per head per day, and the West German tourists spend a massive $136 per head per day while in Australia. Yet, for some reason this year the Australian Tourist Commission has actually cut the amount of money that is being spent on promoting Australia in northern Europe. It is very important that that concentration remain on northern Europe, because it will be northern European tourists who will use very much the infrastructure of the Australian industry. For example, an American who is coming to Australia might have his McDonalds hamburgers and a Coke for lunch. On the other hand, the German would tend to use restaurants for both lunch and dinner. It is in those areas that we do have a very great capacity to employ so many young people today. It is in the hospitality industry and the restaurant and catering industry that so many of those jobs will be provided. I think it is important that the Australian Tourist Commission get its emphasis right. In my home State of Queensland in the last 12 to 18 months we have seen a massive explosion in the number of Japanese tourists who are coming to Australia. We read regularly in the Press that the Japanese see Australia as one of their prime destinations. It is one of the places that they want to visit. Yet there are some great difficulties because the amount of capacity provided by the international airlines on the Japan-Australia run is limited. Although at the end of this month an additional service will be provided, it will still not be enough to be able to provide the number of seats that are required if we are really going to be involved in that Japanese international tourism market. I think Australia has been wise inasmuch as it has concentrated its efforts in that Japanese market on young people. It is true that the Japanese are probably the hardest tourists to look after. But the young Japanese people now have a knowledge of English. They do not require to go around the countryside in organised groups. The other thing-- Mr Barry Jones —A lot of them come here for honeymoons. Mr JULL —Many of them come here for honeymoons. That is the point I was going to raise. The Japanese honeymoon market is probably one of the most lucrative that we can get into. According to Japanese tradition, the honeymooners have an obligation to buy a gift for those people who come to their wedding. They usually buy their gifts at their point of destination. So in terms of the souvenir industry in Australia a lot of money is to be made. We should be making sure that we can provide the capacity for the Japanese to come to Australia-that is, airline seats. If we do not do that we will certainly miss out on a big potential market. I bring that point forward because in recent days the Premier of Queensland, who has just returned from Japan, has made an announcement that he has the application by All Nippon Airways for charter flight rights into north Queensland and Brisbane. One would hope that the Government in its wisdom will see fit to grant those charter rights as soon as possible, because that is a huge market. If one is looking at a return airfare between Australia and Japan of under $500-that is really what the charter market is all about, fixing those fares so that international visitors can come here-I am sure that we will see a massive explosion of the whole tourist industry in north Queensland. I think the Government should be concentrating very closely indeed on that charter concept in this time of talk of deregulation in so many other areas. Already there has been initial interest in European charter operators coming to Australia providing a fare of about $850 return from Europe. If one lines up that fare against those being offered by the scheduled operators one can see that while the schedule fares remain in place we may not be very competitive. But if we can get those low priced international charter air fares into operation the tyranny of distance, which has for so long been one of the big difficulties in building the international tourist market for Australia, can be overcome. It is a fact that the Europeans and the Japanese are travelling further and further these days to reach their tourist destinations. It is just the cost of the air fare which will stop them coming to Australia. When we talk about deregulation I must also say that I was very pleased indeed to see that the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) announced yet another review of the two-airline system in Australia. Despite what Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines tell us, this country still has the highest domestic air fare structure in the world. The airlines can argue until they are blue in the face but the plain facts of the situation are that in all the overseas countries so many fares are available which allow tourists to get around that when one stacks up against them the around Australia fare of $800 one sees that the cost of internal travel in Australia, especially for international visitors, is a real deterrent. One would hope for some breaking of the regulated mould that we have now in order to allow real tourist fares, or even charter fares, within Australia to be made available to both the international and domestic markets. One of my jobs when I was out of this place over the last 20 months was, in fact, to negotiate on international air rights and to have discussions with the domestic airlines regarding the whole situation of rights and fare structures. It was interesting at one stage that the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, where I was working, in fact put together with East West Airlines Ltd a charter air fare from Sydney to the Gold Coast at a cost of $99 return. We put with that a $100 a week accommodation package which meant that people travelling out of Sydney at least could go for a holiday on the Gold Coast for less than $200 for a week. That was very popular until the two major domestic airlines decided to come in on top of East West Airlines and literally knock it off the route. I think that is the sort of situation we have to get over. We can start looking at charter air fares within Australia in the range of, say, $200 from Sydney to Cairns and back, and $250 from Melbourne to Cairns and back, not operating against scheduled services, but operating in off hours purely as tourist charters. I believe that for the health of the nation, as much as anything else, we should try to encourage people to travel around Australia. In the last two years something like 46 per cent of the population has not been away from home, has not had a holiday. I think we should do whatever we can, not only for the purpose of providing extra employment in the tourist industry but also for the health of people, to encourage people to move around to see what this tremendous country has to offer in terms of tourist attractions. Australia is one of the greatest countries in that respect. Most importantly, we should make sure that we can get some of those people out of the environment which I mentioned in that quotation from the original maiden speech. If we can get that extra 46 per cent of the population to move around we will find, in fact, that many of our unemployment problems will be overcome. It is interesting that the Bureau of Industry Economics indicates in its figures that every time we have a net increase of 25,000 international visitors to Australia we create another 1,200 jobs. Every time we can get an Australian to go on holidays we can start cranking up that employment generator as well. Every time we can get 230 people to get in their cars, drive across a State border and take a holiday of at least one night we create a job. When we can get that net number increased we will create more jobs. Tourism, more than any other industry in Australia today, has the capacity to be able to provide that long term employment. I hope that in future Budget considerations the Government will look at not only increasing the amount of money allocated to the Australian Tourist Commission for overseas promotion but also furthering its endeavours in promoting domestic tourism in Australia. Both factors are very real in terms of the employment that they can create in this industry, an industry which is now the second biggest in Queensland. In terms of the amount of money it brought into the State, it beat the sugar industry last year. It is the biggest employer in Queensland. Those figures are certainly starting to be reflected around the other States of Australia. But that is not to say that I am criticising the Government at all. What I am saying is that it should get its priorities right in terms of the money it provides for employment generation and that the tourist industry, more than any other industry, has that capacity to be able to provide so much of that long term employment rather than some of the artificial programs on which millions and millions of dollars are being spent today. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has come into the House. I am sure that he heard my words of wisdom when he was in his office and had to run to the House to hear exactly what I was going to say. I think another aspect that we should be looking at is making sure that when the Minister looks, for example, at the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission he makes sure that we have a lean, hard body which has the commercial capacity to get into those overseas market-places and promote Australia in a very real way. My suggestion to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism who is at the table is simply this: Maybe it is time for the charter of the Australian Tourist Commission to be overhauled and looked at to ensure that when its representatives are overseas promoting Australia they can also deliver the goods. I think the Commission does a pretty good job of straight promotion but in terms of the commercial side, of really putting together the tourist packages to make sure those tourists can get here, I think that under its present charter the ATC is lacking. I think we should perhaps be looking to making it a more commercial entity. I think it is worth repeating that every time we can get an additional 25,000 international visitors to this country we create another 1,200 jobs. Every time we get an additional 230 people in Australia taking a domestic holiday we have another job up. My only hope is that there will be a realisation in the Government and, indeed, throughout the community that it is the tourist industry more than any other that we must promote. We must make sure that that industry provides jobs for this generation of Australians and for generations to come. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.06) —In speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate today I first congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your re-election as a Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. Your rulings and demeanour in this House add a great deal to its stature. I also congratulate Mr Speaker, and the new members elected to the Parliament. The return of previous members such as the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) is interesting to see. His speech today was on tourism, something that all of us are interested in. Mr N. A. Brown —What about me? Mr LEO McLEAY —I see that the shadow Attorney-General-who now has the name of the tape worm-would like me to acknowledge his return. There is no doubt that in recent days he has added a little interest to debate in the House as well. After the last election I was pleased to see the re-election of a fine contingent of honourable members from my home State of New South Wales. As the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) said in her contribution to the debate some hour or so ago, a number of the younger members from that State will provide a great deal of talent in the Parliament in the years to come. Today I would like to say some things about the Government's funding policies for the arts. In particular, I will make a plea for a fair go for contemporary music in this country. On 10 February 1983 Senator Ryan released a paper titled 'Summary of the Australian Labor Party's 1983 Election Commitments to the Arts'. In that paper Senator Ryan stated: Objectives of ALP Arts Policy All Federally-funded cultural activities will be required to: Strengthen the expression of our Australian national identity Reflect the diverse ethnic and racial composition of Australian society Achieve an equitable distribution of programs and resources throughout the entire community Increase access of all Australians to their own culture Strengthen community participation and decision making in cultural development. I think that is a laudable policy and a great objective for any political party in Australia to have. I am pleased to say that that is the objective of my Party. The present Government's initiatives in the arts following its victory in 1983 have been to increase funding for all arts and cultural activities funded by the Commonwealth. Changes in direction have occurred. There has been an increased emphasis on community arts and thus more attention to the democratisation of the arts. This Government has done something to redress the shocking wind-down in funding for cultural activities of the previous Fraser Government. I seek the permission of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to incorporate a table showing comparative costs between fiscal year 1982-83 and fiscal year 1984-85 in the Government allocation for the arts. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is leave granted? The Chair has looked at the table, and, as it is within Mr Speaker's requirements, leave is granted. Mr LEO McLEAY —I thank the House. It should be noted from that table and, indeed, the Australia Council has noted- Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a very brief point of order. I do not want to hold the honourable gentleman up. He can have an extension of time if he wants, but I understand that, if one seeks leave to have something incorporated in Hansard, one has to ask the Opposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thought you had given permission. Mr McVeigh —No, the honourable member asked permission of the Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry. I looked at you and thought there was no objection. Mr McVeigh —No, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just a matter of procedure. The honourable member can certainly have an extension of time to cover the time I have taken up. I have not seen the table. I would like to look at it and if I agree to its incorporation I will indicate my agreement at the end of his speech. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. I call the honourable member for Grayndler. Mr LEO McLEAY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Australia Council indicated-- (Quorum formed) Mr McVeigh —Madam Deputy Speaker, I grant leave for the incorporation of the table. The table read as follows- COMPARATIVE TABLE: RECENT COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARTS/CULTURAL ACTIVITIES Description FY82-83 FY83-84 FY84-85 $m $m $m Total allocation to arts/culture 110.62 129.55 155.23 Total Australia Council allocation 33.4 38.2* 43.6 Mr LEO McLEAY —Before I was interrupted by the philistines of the Opposition I was putting in a plea for a bit of subsidy for rock and roll. I am glad to see that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) is here in the chamber. I was saying that the Government has reversed many of the trends of the former Government in funding for the arts. From the late 1970s to fiscal year 1982-83 there was a steady decline in government funds available for the Australia Council. One needs only to peruse the annual report of the Australia Council to realise that. The present Government and, in particular, the present Minister have a policy of eventually returning funding for arts and culture in this country to the peak level of fiscal year 1975-76. Despite these gains there is evidence to suggest that a disproportionately large amount of funds subsidise a disproportionately small cultural segment of our society. This apparent inequity is exemplified for instance in the music sphere. The Australia Council is one of the Government's major arts funding bodies and subsidises the arts through each of its eight boards. One of these boards, the Music Board, receives approximately 25 per cent of the Australia Council's total allocation which amounted to $9.8m in the fiscal year 1983-84. Of this total of $9.8m some 73 per cent was allocated to the Australian Opera and the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust Orchestra. However, this allocation represented a reduction in the amount provided for these bodies by the Board in 1982-83 when 79 per cent of the Music Board's allocation went to two institutions. I think honourable members should ponder the fact that 79 per cent of the Music Board's allocation went to the high arts, the Australian Opera and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust Orchestra. Mr Gayler —What about rock and roll? Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member has just asked: 'What about rock and roll?' The important thing is that the Australia Council pays little attention to the needs of Australians who are interested in contemporary music. It caters for a minority, a minority which probably ought to be able to afford to cater for itself. I am very concerned that popular culture is not receiving an equitable slice of the music cake. Music is not just opera or the classics. It is also jazz, folk, rock, ethnic and pop music. We should ask whether a reasonably equitable amount of the Commonwealth's music allocation is spent on each of the music forms. On the basis of statistics, the answer is no. I have already noted that 73 per cent of the Music Board's total allocation in the financial year 1983-84 was provided to the Australian Opera and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras. Of the remaining 27 per cent to be allocated to other musical activities, some of that also went to what one might call fine music. Five per cent was spent on musical composition, one per cent on documentation and 14 per cent on performances. Of that 14 per cent, not all of it was earmarked for jazz, folk, ethnic, rock or pop. Mr Gayler —Shame! Mr LEO McLEAY —As the honourable member for Leichhardt points out, it is a great shame. In the Australia Council's annual report for 1983-84 there are notes on the allocations to the performance budget. The Council observes: Although Board funds now and in the past go primarily to the support of 'fine music',-- it uses the words 'fine music'- the Board recognises the part played in the total fabric by other styles. Accordingly, support this year has increased or been initiated for folk music, some forms of ethnic music and rock music. The question to be asked is how equitable these allocations are. It seems that we are favouring a system of double standards. The present funding arrangements could be seen as favouring one age group against another, one income group against another, and a minority against a majority. Two interesting examples of this are the amounts of money that people pay to see these various types of performances. When the mink coat and sable set file into the Sydney Opera House and put their bottoms on the seats, the Government has already put $45 on each seat before they sit down. It has been estimated that the real cost of a seat at the opera is about $80. The price paid at the box office is $35. (Quorum formed) Where is the Opposition? All the Government members are in the House. There are four Liberal and two National Party members. One of the Opposition members has gone to sleep and the others are not really here intellectually. None of the Opposition members are interested in arts or culture, and particularly none of them are interested in rock and roll, except perhaps the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) because he never grew up anyway. As I was saying earlier, when people go to the Opera House, the Government has put $45 on each seat before they put their mink coats behind it. When the kids go to the Sydney Entertainment Centre it is full cost recovery there. When they go to the Entertainment Centre to see such great entertainers as Bruce Springsteen and the other acts which have been on recently, everyone pays full price. The Opera House seats in total about 5,500 people, but there is hardly a sell-out season for the opera. It requires a high degree of State subsidy to remain operational. In fact, out of the generosity of its heart, last year the New South Wales Government gave $8.4m to keep the Opera House going. The opera company itself has great difficulty keeping going, despite the massive subsidies the Government gives it. Honourable members would have read in the newspapers recently that the Australian Opera was on the financial brink. It was thinking of putting itself into receivership. When one has a look at its administration, one wonders what is going on. I read in the newspaper the other day that it inadvertently paid $1m in payroll tax that it did not have to pay because it is a tax exempt body. It has an $800,000 deficit and it is paying taxes it does not need to pay. Rock and roll accountants are a bit smarter than that. Maybe the Australian Opera ought to go and hire some rock and roll accountants. You could bet your life that they would not be paying amounts they did not have to pay. The people who go to the Entertainment Centre pay full freight for what they receive. I think the Entertainment Centre will go down as one of the great venues built by a Labor government in this country. The Centre seats 12,000 people. It caters for sporting events, ballet and opera performances, rock, ethnic and pensioner concerts. Most of the concerts that are held there are sellouts. I think there are two conclusions that can be drawn from these facts. The current Government funding overwhelmingly favours what are termed fine musical tastes for a comparative few. The popular musical tastes of the large proportion of Australians are apparently neglected or receive token treatment. One might ask why politicians, who prior to getting into Parliament might have taken an interest in contemporary music, suddenly think that to become respectable they must go to the opera or the ballet or find other interests. Mr John Brown —I have been going for 20 years. Mr LEO McLEAY —As the honourable member for Parramatta said, he has been an intellectual most of his life and has always gone to the opera and is very much a supporter of the opera. I might say that he, like some of my colleagues, is also a great supporter of contemporary music. He is a man who in another age one might say would be considered a renaissance man. There are also in this House many cultural phoneys, a lot of people who, when they get here, suddenly think they ought to be seen at respectable venues. In this International Year of Youth I think that members of Parliament ought to look at the musical tastes of all Australians. Members of Parliament, as well as being seen in the fine venues, also ought to be seen more often in the more popular, contemporary venues. As well as going to the Opera House they ought to go to the various entertainment centres. The Government, and I am sure the Minister will support this in his submissions to the Cabinet, ought to look at some change in emphasis. While I have no objection to the Government continuing to support fine music-there is a great need for that to be supported-there has to be a little equity in it. To some extent we have to stop the snobbishness which says 'Because contemporary music is commercial'-and God ever help us if the opera should have to become commercial and pay its way-'it is somehow distasteful'. I think that is a terrible thing to say. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to the objectives that were outlined in 1983. I hope that we strengthen the expression of our national identity to reflect the diverse ethnic and racial composition of Australian society. I hope that we realise we can do that in the music area by supporting contemporary music as well as fine music. I ask the Parliament and the Ministers to consider giving rock and roll a go. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.26) —Only one thing is sure, and that is that the Government is going to be rock and rolled at the next election. Just 14 months ago this Government sold to the public the idea that on the payment of the Medicare levy all Australians would have access to medical and hospital cover. The Government argued that Medicare would provide all Australians with equal and guaranteed access to quality health care. Medicare was to provide all the answers, and people were led to believe that there was no need to maintain private health insurance. In fact, the community was actively discouraged from maintaining private health insurance. Economic pressure was applied by the Government to ensure that people gave up their private insurance. The Government removed the tax rebate which previously applied to health insurance premiums. The cost of health insurance premiums was pushed up by the Government's removal of $80 of assistance to health funds for long term patients. To hasten further the death of health insurance funds the Government also prohibited medical insurance in a number of areas, most notably by prohibiting gap insurance. In addition to the economic pressure there was also a slick advertising campaign, together with blatantly misleading promotional material. For example, a pamphlet 'About Medicare. I was wondering . . .' states: Question: How is Medicare paid for? Answer: Medicare is to be funded by a one per cent levy on taxable income. That, of course, is a total and absolute fabrication. It is a blatant lie. It was clearly part of a deliberate strategy undertaken by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to mislead and confuse the Australian public. Just how big a lie was it? The full-year cost of Medicare at the time was estimated to be $1,790m. After five months operation the cost of a full year of operation of Medicare blew out to $2,050m. So the cost of Medicare this year is estimated in the Budget to be $2,050m. What is the levy going to raise? According to the Budget, the Medicare levy is to raise around $1,200m, or $850m short of the cost of Medicare. Yet, the Minister, through his pamphlets, said that the levy was going to fund Medicare. It is $850m short of funding Medicare-an $850m fib. As a result of the Government's deliberately misleading advertising and the economic pressures applied by the Government, hundreds of thousands of Australians who had traditionally exercised freedom of choice to take out private insurance, encouraged by the sweeping promises in respect of Medicare, dropped their insurance and turned to the public sector. The voters were promised and misled into thinking that what they were getting was a national health insurance scheme. What they got was a national health service. A national health insurance scheme implies universality of cover. However, by definition, universality of cover does not automatically lead to a shift of health care from the private sector to the public sector. Yet, that is exactly what is occurring. It is happening because we have a national health service, not a national health insurance scheme. There is nothing implicit in the concept of universality of cover which requires that people lose their choice of doctor, lose their choice of hospital or, for that matter, lose their choice of insurer. The Government's real intention has not been to give universal cover. That was the smokescreen. Rather, it is out to nationalise health. The problem is that honourable members opposite have accepted the misleading advice from the Goebbels of the Health portfolio, the Minister for Health. Is section 17 of the health legislation, which is concerned with the controlling of doctors' contracts in hospitals, essential for a universal health insurance scheme? Of course it is not. The provisions of section 17 can be understood only in the context of socialised medicine where the employment of doctors is under the control of the Government, not the patient. The categorisation of private hospitals and the classification and regulation of private hospitals, as are occurring under Medicare, are designed to bring private hospitals into the public sector. There is no purpose in strangling the private hospital system other than to convert all hospitals into public facilities. That is not necessary in a system of universal health insurance cover. If bulk billing is carried out to the extent that this Government is pushing, it will result in doctors becoming employees of the Government rather than the patient. The crippling restrictions placed on private insurers, the withdrawal of rebates, the failure to ensure community rating, the prohibition of gap insurance and the withdrawal of reinsurance subsidies have all made it increasingly difficult for private insurers to play a major role in the provision of health cover. The balance of private and public sector involvement in the delivery of health care, which has been the hallmark of the Australian system now for a number of decades, has thus been destroyed. Having fallen prey to the Government's slick and misleading selling of the Medicare package, what has been the experience after 12 months? Have all Australians in fact been provided with equal and guaranteed access to health care as promised? In Victoria the queues for major surgery have more than doubled in the last two years. This is exactly what was predicted by the Opposition. We warned that by actively discouraging people from taking out private insurance, the burden on the public hospital system would become intolerable and queues would develop. Between 15,000 and 20,000 people are now awaiting admission to hospitals in Victoria. Mr Carlton —Disgraceful! Mr PORTER —It is disgraceful. One cannot blame the doctors for what is happening in Victoria because they are not engaged in any industrial dispute in that State. The blame has to be placed on Medicare. Victoria is not the only State in which this is happening. In South Australia, for example, the queue for ear, nose and throat surgery at the Royal Adelaide Hospital has quadrupled and there is now a 12 months delay. This is the result of Medicare. I have been flooded with examples of the hardship caused by these Medicare-generated queues. Let me quote very briefly just one. Mrs T of Victoria requires both knee joints to be replaced. She is unable to walk and is confined to bed. She has been in this situation since 3 February 1984. She has been confined to bed for over 14 months because of Dr Blewett's Medicare. Fundamental changes to the health care delivery system are required. The issue is not simply doctors' incomes, as the Government would like the public to believe. The underlying issue is whether Australia is to continue down the Labor Government's path of a bureaucratic, expensive nationalised health service or whether we are to rebuild and improve upon the dual system of public and private health care which has been the hallmark of Australian health care for the past century. Statements that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Health have been making recently sound exactly like the statements made during the debates of a year ago on section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. At that time the Minister for Health stated: Nothing in Medicare threatens private medical practice in this country. The Prime Minister's recent assurances that his Government has no intention of destroying private health practice in this country fly in the face of all the evidence. One only has to look at what is happening to the private hospital system and to the private health funds, and then weigh the pressure on consumers to leave the private sector and become public patients along with the pressures on doctors to bulk bill, to recognise that the effects of the Government's policies will be to nationalise health. The Hawke Government also promised that Medicare would be fair and equitable, but we have seen what has happened to the poor and the elderly. They have been struck in evergrowing queues. The Government has doggedly refused to accept that the central issue in all the health-related disputes around the country is Medicare itself. As long as the Government remains unwilling to make any changes to the basic structure of Medicare, there can be little progress towards a long term settlement of these disputes. The premise that the great bulk of health care should be financed and delivered through the auspices of the Government, with doctors no longer being employed by their patients but by the Government, is fundamental to the structure of Medicare which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health insist will not be changed. However, it is not fundamental to a system of universal health cover. Likewise the strangulation of both the private health insurers and the private hospitals is fundamental to the basic structure of Medicare, but, most emphatically, is not fundamental to a system of universal health cover. It has become clear why the Government has not taken steps to alleviate the problems of Medicare and avoid the present crisis. We know that the Minister is a very determined left wing socialist and it is obvious that he does not want to take the necessary steps to change Medicare because he is determined to pursue his policy to its conclusion, which is the institution of socialised medicine in Australia. Instead of initiating change which could have averted the present crisis, the Government has attempted to paint the medical profession as the villain. The doctors have been holding firm for fundamental changes to Medicare because they know that under a national health system the high standard of medical care which Australians have enjoyed under the dual system of private and public care will deteriorate, and at best Australians will be left with mediocrity. The fundamental issue which the doctors are attempting to address but which the Government will not address is whether private health care can survive in Australia. The Minister has calculated that, if the situation becomes acute enough, the doctors will have to back down and settle for short term concession rather than fundamental changes to Medicare. The Government is using as pawns those Australians who cannot afford private health insurance. The people who are genuinely dependent upon the public hospitals, those who cannot afford to turn to the private sector, are being forced to bear the brunt of this Government's reckless game of brinksmanship. The poor, the elderly, the chronically ill are the ones who are being shunted to the back of the growing queues for admission to hospital. The Government is ruthless in its pursuit of socialised medicine, and appears to be determined to win at any cost. Let me give a classic example of the disadvantages of a socialised health delivery scheme. Mr John Brown —You would not know a poor person. What are you talking about? Mr PORTER —These fellows would not spend in a year as much as the Minister would spend in one day of his overseas trips. In the Australian Capital Territory there are a number of health care centres which are manned by salaried medical officers. They are government health care centres funded by the Government and run by the Government. There are some 14 full time salaried doctors in these health care centres, which are under the control of the Federal Department of Health through the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. These salaried doctors would be costing the taxpayers around $80,000 to $100,000 a year. That amount is made up of a salary of around $45,000 to $50,000 plus the costs of overheads such as five weeks annual leave with loading, two weeks study leave, sick leave, six months sabbatical leave after six years, three months of long service leave after 10 years, and so on. Mr McVeigh —When do they work? Mr PORTER —If the honourable member waits for a minute he will hear the answer. There is no doubt that the provision of such health services to the Australian Capital Territory community through the government employed general practitioners is in line with the Health Minister's socialist philosophy. However, those services could be provided by the private GPs at a substantially reduced cost to the taxpayer. I have recently been provided with details of the number of patients being seen per day by the salaried doctors in one of the health centres, namely the Melba Health Centre. It is interesting to see just how efficient socialised medicine can be. As I have explained, the cost of these doctors to the taxpayers is around $80,000 to $100,000 a year. Yet on the figures provided to me those doctors are seeing, on average, 13 to 15 patients a day. Some see as few as two patients a day. After I rang various private GPs, I made a guestimate that the number of patients seen each day by a private GP in an average practice is around 30. That is double the number seen by the Minister's nationalised GPs. Australia cannot afford this outrageous and extravagant waste of taxpayers' funds. It cannot afford the Minister's socialised health policy. Under socialised medicine the Australian Capital Territory example would be duplicated all around Australia in all the health delivery areas. Under this Government's health policies, the cost of health care will continue to go through the roof. Another example of maladministration of the Health portfolio under this Minister, and an example of the Minister's duplicity, was revealed yesterday. It was reported in the Age of 21 March that a Federal Health Department official was ordered to destroy details of a computer analysis which revealed a dramatic increase in the estimated cost of medifraud. This was followed by the Minister for Health's announcement that the computerised system which produced information about the increase in medifraud is to be scrapped and that the surveillance and detection of fraud on overservicing are to be moved to the Health Insurance Commission. Yesterday the Minister made an extraordinary statement to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. He said: It has become clear to this Government that the fraud and overservicing detection system, as established by the previous Government, is an overly bureaucratic and inefficient method of detecting fraud and overservicing. He said that it was our fault because the system was established by the previous Government. Honourable members may recall that on 15 November 1983, when we were under the present Government, the same Minister gave a very long and detailed statement to the House in which he described in great detail the actions that his Government was taking to deal with the serious problems of medical fraud and overservicing. His proposed actions included doubling expenditure to counter fraud and overservicing from $4m to $8m, doubling the staffing and reorganising regional offices to deal with activities related to fraud and overservicing. The Minister then went on to describe how FODS was being upgraded and improved through the appointment of extra personnel and how special training programs were being established. He explained that his Department was 'currently working on the development of a new system for dealing with the very complex problem' of overservicing. After all those plans-the doubling of funding, the doubling of staff, the grand reorganisation and the glowing promises-the Minister had the gall to say yesterday that FODS as established by the previous Government was 'an overly bureaucratic and inefficient method of detecting fraud and overservicing'. The Minister for Health said that. He is the one who doubled the bureaucracy and doubled the funding. In fact, the greatest medifraud of all is this Government's health policy. We have had nothing but deception and pretence from the Minister for Health since the Government took office. His statement to the Public Accounts Committee is typical. The deception started with the Government's blatantly misleading promises about Medicare. The voters thought they were getting a national health insurance system. But what they got was a national health service. The Government's fraud is repeated time after time. The information it provided to the public was fraudulent and misleading. While the Government continues to strangle the private hospital system and private health funds, while it continues its attempts to coerce doctors into becoming employees of the Government instead of employees of their patients, and while it continues to deceive the Australian people that Medicare is the fairest health insurance scheme Australia has ever had, it is orchestrating the end of private health care in this country and leading us down the path of socialised medicine. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Tickner) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Government has decided upon a course of action which will put to rest once and for all the extent of unauthorised telephone interception in New South Wales and the extent to which that material may disclose breaches of the law. The proposed course of action has been arrived at in consultation with the Government of New South Wales and it is a course of action on which both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby agree. Before coming to the details of that course of action, I would like to set the record straight on a number of matters because it has been suggested that there has been an 'about face' on the issue. I regard comments of that kind as grossly inaccurate in a context where I have been endeavouring to resolve, and I believe the Government has now resolved, a most difficult issue in the administration of criminal justice. As is well known, Mr Justice Stewart in his eighth interim report recommended that indemnities be granted to 31 New South Wales police officers in respect of conduct which may have breached the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Mr Justice Stewart was faced, in making that recommendation, with a difficult problem, namely, that in order to obtain truthful evidence for the officers concerned, he felt they needed to be given an assurance that they would not be prosecuted in respect of matters arising out of their evidence. I do not want to underestimate the difficulty Mr Justice Stewart faced, but his recommendations presented me with at least as much difficulty. Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Attorney-General. A second reading speech has been distributed to the Parliament and I am reading it. The Attorney-General is making an entirely different speech. He is not making the second reading speech and this should be clarified. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On the point of order, by way of clarification, it was thought there would need to be an additional statement which, or course, was given to the Opposition. I am sorry that the honourable member has not received it. I think it is available. This matter was drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I apologise if the honourable member has not received it. It was done to avoid trying to do two things separately. I am not trying to embarrass the honourable member, but the statement was given. Mr N. A. Brown —My point is that it is not headed 'second reading speech'. That is the point I am making. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On the point of order, by arrangement it was agreed to combine the two statements. I apologise if the honourable member did not know that. But it was agreed on that basis. The prosecution policy of the Commonwealth, which I emphasise was presented to the Parliament in December 1982 by the Acting Attorney-General, on behalf of the then Attorney-General, lays down very clear principles to be applied in the grant of an indemnity by the Attorney-General. I want to refer to those principles because I think they are very important in considering this matter. I quote what was said by the Attorney-General in 1982: In principle it is desirable that the criminal justice system should operate without the need to grant indemnities or pardons to persons who participate in offences with a view to these persons giving evidence against the principal offenders . . . Nevertheless, before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or to recommend to the Governor-General the grant of a pardon, all possible alternative courses must be considered. One possible alternative which must always be considered is to proceed to conviction of the prospective witness in respect of at least some of the offences committed by him before commencement of the trial of the principal offender . . . The question is-and I quote again: Is the evidence of the person in respect of whom the indemnity or pardon is sought essential to achieve the conviction of the principal offender? The policy statement then concluded with these words: The ultimate decision to grant an indemnity or recommend grant of a pardon is only made after the most careful consideration of . . (the) material. Assuming a decision is made to grant an indemnity, the scope of the indemnity should be no wider than the circumstances require. The principles I have just referred to make it clear that indemnities should not be lightly given; and they should be given in a context where the person, the subject of the indemnity, is capable of giving evidence in a prosecution for a more serious offence than the offence the subject of the indemnity. In considering the application of these principles, I have been concerned that breaches of Commonwealth intercept law cannot be taken lightly. That law regulates intrusion into the basic privacy of every citizen. Unauthorised and illegal intrusion is a very serious matter. I add that the Government takes the gravest view of illegal intrusions on the rights of individuals, particularly by police. I quote the following statement which I have made: The Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act is a protection of the civil rights of the citizens of Australia. Breaches of it, particularly by police, are not matters that can be overlooked except in situations of the utmost gravity. The advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC, was sought. Mr Temby advised against the grant of indemnities and his reasoning is consistent with the principles set out in the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth which I have just described. I repeat that the evidence there was not likely to lead to the prosecution of any person. I should also add that both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby have advised me that the Age materials themselves are unlikely to lead to prosecutions. The issues now involved, however, are much wider than the granting of indemnities to New South Wales police officers. As I have already said in the Parliament, Mr Justice Stewart has reported on a much wider extent of unauthorised interception in New South Wales than the period of the Age materials, which was 1976 to 1981. Mr Justice Stewart refers in his report to the fact that unauthorised intercepts took place in New South Wales up to 1984. The Government believes that the time has come to have the full extent of unauthorised interception in New South Wales thoroughly examined by a royal commission. The Government believes that an independent assessment should be made of the extent to which material or information relating to unauthorised intercepts discloses offences against the law. The Government has decided to change the terms of the Stewart Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon these fundamental matters. The course of action which has been arrived at, in agreement with the Government of New South Wales, is as follows: 1. Amend the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) to provide that Stewart J. can exercise the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court under that Act. 2. Amend the Commonwealth terms of reference of the Stewart Royal Commission to empower that Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon- (a) whether there exists any information or material, including documents or tape recordings, relating to unauthorised telephone intercepts occurring in New South Wales in the possession of any person-in particular, NSW police and Australian Federal Police-which discloses an offence or possible offence against a law of the Commonwealth and which warrants further investigation; I explain that 'offence' is, of course, a criminal offence. That is the definition of 'offence' in that regard. The Royal Commission will report upon- (b) the nature of the offence or offences so disclosed; (c) the identity of any person who Stewart J. considers is capable of giving evidence which will or will tend to render such information or material admissible in a prosecution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of the State, or who is capable of giving information which might reasonably lead to evidence of such an offence, in respect of whom Stewart J. recommends an indemnity in relation to offences against Commonwealth law in connection with unauthorised telephone intercepts. It should be noted that the grant of indemnity will be subject to the following conditions: The person concerned gives, in the opinion of Mr Justice Stewart, his active co-operation including the giving of evidence truthfully and frankly and withholding nothing of relevance in the inquiry aforementioned in which he is required to give evidence; Mr Justice Stewart remains satisfied at the conclusion of the inquiry that the actions of the person concerned were carried out for the sole purpose of gathering information for use only in the investigation of crime. 3. New South Wales will establish terms of reference for Stewart J. similar to the Commonwealth terms, but in respect of State offences. The proposed Commonwealth terms of reference have been discussed with the New South Wales Government and its officials. 4. Amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979: (a) to remove the requirement that Stewart J. must establish the authenticity of the Age materials before dealing with them further; (b) to permit persons to furnish material to the Royal Commission without breaching that Act; (c) to permit the Royal Commission to pass on material to responsible authorities-for example, the National Crime Authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police, the New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Solicitor-General-without committing an offence against that Act. I welcome the co-operation I have received from the Opposition in allowing this matter to be introduced as a matter of urgency today. Save for the authenticity question, the amendments proposed are consistent with the earlier Stewart Royal Commission amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That is the proposed course of action. It has the agreement of Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby. They have been consulted on the new terms of reference for the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, under its revised Commonwealth and New South Wales terms of reference, will be able to inquire into and report on: (a) the full extent of unauthorised telephone interception in New South Wales. It is not limited by any period of interception, except, I might add, that it would be limited as from today. In other words, we would not be countenancing any further interception merely because we are introducing this Bill. We emphasise that it must cease, certainly as from the establishment of this Commission. (b) the full extent of criminal conduct exposed by that interception; and (c) the recommendation of indemnities, but based upon proper principles. The Royal Commission will be required to report to both governments not later than 31 December 1985. I make the point that we would expect all police officers concerned to come before the Commission within 28 days from this date. We see no need for any longer period. Anybody who has any information should come forward with that information within that period of time. If that is so, it may well be that the Commission can complete its deliberations well before 31 December next. I move to the contents of the amending Bill. It amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to enable Mr Justice Stewart, as Royal Commissioner, to investigate unauthorised telephone intercepts occurring in New South Wales to see whether they disclose an offence or possible offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. The Government's decision to enlarge Mr Justice Stewart's terms of reference for this purpose was dealt with in the ministerial comments I have already made. The Bill generally follows the form of the amendments that were passed last year at the Budget sittings to enable the so-called Age materials to be passed to Mr Justice Stewart in his capacity as Royal Commissioner appointed to inquire into drug trafficking. There are, however, two major changes which, in effect, make the inquiry envisaged by this legislation a completely new one in many respects. First of all, the legislation will enable Mr Justice Stewart to look at material and information additional to material and information relating to the Age materials. Secondly, the Bill removes the requirement that was inserted in the legislation enacted last year to the effect that the material could only be used after an initial finding by Mr Justice Stewart that the documents in question are an authentic record of the matters purported to be recorded in them. Mr Justice Stewart has agreed that this requirement should be removed, having regard to the unreliable character of some, if not most, of the material. A further provision has been added, modelled on existing section 6P of the Royal Commission Act, to enable the Royal Commissioner to pass on material to law enforcement authorities where that is the appropriate course. The law enforcement authorities named in the Bill are the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, of a State or of the Northern Territory; the Director of Public Prosecutions; a Special Prosecutor appointed under the Special Prosecutors Act; the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or of the Northern Territory; or the authority or person responsible for the administration or enforcement of the law in question; and also the National Crime Authority. I make one personal comment. This morning's Daily Telegraph contains an editorial which suggests an incorrect background. I would have thought that the position would have been understood by responsible editorials, but the editorial in that newspaper is superficial and ill-informed. It says that the Age tapes was a one-off case. I make the point that that is not so. There is no confusion in anybody's mind as to the distinction that exists between the Age material which was of no value or not thought to be of any value in prosecution-therefore, Mr Temby recommended that indemnities not be granted-and new material or other material which may now be of value, and accordingly indemnities perhaps should be considered. I draw that distinction. It should also be made clear that there is the question of the High Court's decisions in matters such as Bunning v. Cross, and in the last 48 hours in the Hilton case. Such decisions make it clear also, irrespective of whether indemnities are granted, that the court still has a discretion on the basis of whether it will admit evidence illegally obtained. I make that point because the editor does not seem to understand it. The terms of the Commission which I have just outlined make it clear that the Government is determined to achieve a careful balance between law enforcement and the rights of a private individual to privacy. There is no question that the Government will tolerate any corruption. Equally, there will be no question of any police being led to believe that they can break the law with impunity. Having said that, I think that what we now have before the House is an opportunity to pursue energetically all matters related to criminal evidence and the prosecution of criminals as well as getting the balance of safeguards of rights of citizens. It will be noticed that an onerous responsibility is placed on Mr Justice Stewart to carry out that function. He is an outstanding judge and we welcome his efforts in the pursuit of crime. I make one final point. The financial implication of the Bill, if the Commission runs its full term, would be approximately $1.5m. I make that as a point of comment. Of course, if the Commission finishes in a shorter period of time, we would expect the outlay to reduce accordingly. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(12.03) —We support the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, but it does no credit to the Government that it should be introduced so late and so reluctantly. The Government has had to be pushed and prodded every inch of the way into taking this action, which is at least one step towards fighting and, hopefully, stamping out organised crime in Australia. The Government has resisted every move by the Opposition to grapple with the problem and to make some positive response to it. It is only when the Government has been backed into a corner, when its case is in tatters, when its Attorney-General is discredited, when its whole defence has been shown to be riddled with evasion, contradiction and prevarication, when it has nowhere else to turn, that it has reluctantly and grudgingly agreed to take this action. This Bill is part of a package-a package that is a belated response by the Government to the Opposition's demand to take action on the Age tapes, the new taped material and the matters that emerge from them. Other parts of the package are referred to in the Bill. It should be made perfectly plain at the outset that the sophistry of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that we heard in the latter part of his remarks just will not stand up. The Government has had access to all of this material, and the belated attempt by the Attorney-General to say 'We have changed our position simply because there is new material which has appeared from nowhere and to which we have now given consideration' is a false defence. It is a defence which is full of holes and will not stand up. I shall elaborate on that further. The first part of this package concerns the need for a new royal commission and the Government's reluctant agreement to establish it. The Opposition demanded a royal commission a year ago, and the Government rejected it. The Government said that there was no need for a royal commission; and it said that only three days ago. As recently as three days ago the Attorney-General was on his feet in this House saying that there was no need for a royal commission into these matters. Three days ago the Government had before it all the material it has today, all the material about which the Attorney-General now has the gall to say: 'Here is new material which should be investigated. We have only just discovered it and here is our instantaneous response'. It is not an instantaneous response. It is a response that has been drawn from the Government like drawing teeth. Three days ago it said that it was opposed to a royal commission and now it says to the public and to the Parliament that there is a need for a royal commission. What a remarkable turnabout that is. What has brought about this death-bed conversion? Is it because of some new zeal to fight organised crime, some new commitment which has emerged in the last three days to investigate the material that has been revealed? Of course not. The Government made it perfectly plain only three days ago that it would oppose the establishment of a royal commission. Listen to the Attorney-General speaking in this debate on Monday. He said: I think the Opposition is getting carried away with the suggestion that a royal commission will establish anything different from what Mr Justice Stewart can do. Who is getting carried away today, if the Government is now proposing a new royal commission? The Opposition was right on Monday to propose a royal commission and it is right to do so today. That, of course, was only Monday. On Monday there was no need for a royal commission. The Attorney-General's position on Tuesday was that the terms of Mr Justice Stewart's inquiry were 'limited'. He said: 'I think they are not sufficient. I think they have to be widened.' One can see coming up over the horizon some glimmer of appreciation by the Government that, slowly but surely, it was being dragged into taking new and positive action. What could explain such a remarkable change? On Monday the judge's terms were adequate. By Tuesday they were not. What had happened overnight? By Tuesday night there was a need for a virtually new royal commission. By Wednesday morning the Government had gone one step further, believe it or not. By Tuesday night there was a need only for a virtually new royal commission, but by Wednesday it was a fully fledged new royal commission that was needed, launched, and away and flying. There can be only one reason for these extraordinary changes, for this death-bed conversion by the Government; that is, that the Government has been driven into the position where it has had to concede that its opposition to a royal commission simply cannot be propped up any longer against the weight of public opinion, the Press and this Parliament. To use that memorable phrase we heard the other day in this Parliament, the Attorney-General has been 'caught out'. No one can believe that the Government has any serious commitment to fighting organised crime when it has opposed, and opposed repeatedly, every constructive suggestion put to it by the Opposition and by the Press, including the demand for a royal commission. What we have said about this death-bed conversion so far as a royal commission is concerned applies equally as far as indemnities are concerned to prove the police tapes, the raw material. What extraordinary changes in the Government's threadbare position we have seen on this issue over the last few days. What was the position last Wednesday? Last Wednesday, the Attorney-General's view was that the police 'are not entitled to indemnity'. He went further than that. Not only were the police not entitled to indemnity, but they were criminals so far as the Attorney-General was concerned; they had committed crimes and they were deserving of what he called punitive action. It is a black day in the long history of Attorneys-General when we hear one Attorney-General in the Parliament of the Commonwealth saying: 'These people are criminals. Do not wait for the trials. Do not wait for the charges. The police are criminals and they are deserving of punishment'. That was the position on Wednesday. I make it clear that last Wednesday his view was that the police are not-I repeat, not-entitled to indemnity. Until Thursday on the AM radio program he was-I give him this-at least consistent. On Thursday he said: 'I cannot give them an indemnity'. By Thursday night, not surprisingly, there had been another change; his office, presumably with his authority, was saying that those views were the Attorney-General's personal view; that no formal decision, one way or the other, had yet been made. By Thursday's Question Time, needless to say, there was another variation, another grudging step forward. The line on indemnities was: 'The matter has not been finalised'. I repeat that the Attorney-General had all the facts, all the taped material-whatever form the material may be in-while these sea changes were under way. By Tuesday of this week, the Attorney-General was off again. By this time the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had been the great prop of the argument the week before, had been abandoned. He had been left behind as being of no use at all to the Government's case. According to the Attorney-General on Tuesday: 'If Mr Justice Stewart recommended an indemnity I see no reason why I should not give it'. What a remarkable series of changes from a government in such a short time from 'They are not entitled to an indemnity and they are criminals who should be punished' to the final stage-'I see no reason why indemnities should not be given'. Can anyone believe that this Government is committed to the fight against organised crime? Can anyone believe that the Government has its heart in these proposals? Can anyone believe that the Government has a firm commitment on these matters when, with all the material before it during the whole period of this pathetic, tragi-comedy, the Government makes so many changes in its position. What a remarkable somersault! Last week, the police were branded as criminals deserving of punishment and certainly not entitled to indemnities. This week, the police, reluctantly so far as the Government is concerned, may be given indemnities in appropriate cases. This whole history has been characterised by shifting ground, double-talk and arguments thrown up and abandoned when they have been exposed for exactly what they are-shallow and utterly destructive of any prospect of proving the tapes and prosecuting the crimes revealed on them. Then came what I could call the final capitulation-the amendment in the Bill before us today to allow the taped material to be used before the new royal commission, which the Government was opposing root and branch only days ago. This Bill allows documents in the possession of the Director of Public Prosecutions to be used in any new inquiry, and that is good. It allows unlawfully obtained material that discloses an offence to be given to Mr Justice Stewart and used in his inquiries. I wonder-perhaps I can have this explained to me-whether the Government still has this matter straight because in the Bill which we have been given we are told that the definition of 'unlawfully obtained material' means: . . . a document or information arising out of or relating to the unlawful interception-- of telecommunications- (whether before or after the commencement of this section). I read that to mean that the unlawful interception may take place after this section comes into operation. From what the Attorney-General put earlier, I understood him to say: 'There are some limits on this. Nothing that happens after today will have any effect at all'. In the Committee stage he might explain this. But this proposal, with that qualification, is a good one. It allows Mr Justice Stewart to give to the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Crime Authority and the police documents or information disclosing an offence, and likewise that is a useful power. So we will support the Bill. We will have more to say in the Committee stage on particular provisions of the Bill. Let me say in addition that we will want an assurance that Mr Justice Stewart is in fact able to do this work. I hasten to say that I have the highest admiration for Mr Justice Stewart and many of his achievements, but the facts are that he still has the remnants of the Mr Asia drug inquiry, he still has the Nugan Hand Bank inquiry and he is head of the National Crime Authority, which the Government keeps telling us is applying itself day and night with great industry to investigating organised crime. We make no criticism of the judge at all, but we want an assurance from the Government, and an assurance based on reasonable grounds, that Mr Justice Stewart can do the job. We will be moving an amendment to the effect that this should be carried out. We will be moving in effect that he should be provided with personnel and material resources, including the services of senior counsel and other assistants, resources that are sufficient for the inquiry to be completed with thoroughness, effectiveness and expedition. We will be moving further that the House calls upon the Government to be satisfied that Mr Justice Stewart's other important inquiries into the Nugan Hand Bank and the Mr Asia affair and his work as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority are able to proceed without hindrance or disruption in addition to the further inquiries which are the subject of the Bill before the House. These reforms are desirable but it does no credit to the Government that the reforms contained in this Bill and the package of which they are a part come so reluctantly and so grudgingly from the Government and only after the Attorney-General, in trying to maintain his untenable defence, has been caught out, and so frequently, and only after the Government, of which he is a part, has been caught out so frequently. In the few minutes remaining and without delaying the House any further I mention some other matters of organised crime because this Bill is part of a package and part of the response of the Government. We should be looking at the other matters that have been put as far as this issue is concerned. The first point that should be made is that the Attorney-General has been guilty of a foolish and childish attempt to pass the buck on some of these matters. The Attorney-General maintains, as I apprehend, that it was the Opposition that did nothing when it was in government as far as the matters that this Bill covers are concerned. But the Opposition is proud of the record of the actions that it undertook and the results it achieved when it was in government by starting the fight against organised crime. People should not forget this basic fact: When it became apparent, through royal commission reports and other sources of investigation, that there was a serious problem so far as organised crime was concerned, our Government acted promptly and effectively. The Opposition would like to remind this Government of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Who established the Costigan Royal Commission? Mr Price —Bash the unions. What about Askin? Mr N. A. BROWN —Yes, yes, but why does the honourable member not listen for a change. I will tell him something else about the Costigan Royal Commission report. It was this Government that set it up. I am very interested to know what the Government's response is to its recommendations. Those honourable members opposite who are backbenchers should join with me in saying that it is an absolute disgrace that although the Costigan Royal Commission report was given to the Government during the election campaign, four months ago, it has not been tabled in this House. Government backbenchers should be joining us in asking: 'Where are the recommendations?' What is the response of the Government to these recommendations?' The Government keeps saying, as one hears in gossip in the corridors, that it is working on a statement of response to the Costigan recommendations. Where is it? Why should Government backbenchers have to wait for four months to hear what the Government's response is to the recommendations that Costigan made. We could ask: 'When are we going to hear the Government's response to these matters?' It is all very well for the present Government to point the finger at us and say that we were embarrassed by some of the Costigan recommendations. Frankly I could not care less whether we were embarrassed. We want to see some reponse from the Government. Does it accept his recommendations or not? When will the Government get off its backside and tell the Parliament and the people what its response is to the Costigan Royal Commission recommendations? Secondly, let it not be overlooked that the former Government established the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. The Government is trading on Mr Justice Stewart's good name and achievements in the very action it is taking today. Do not forget who initiated that inquiry. It was initiated in the time of the previous Government. I remind honourable members, thirdly, that it was the previous Government that introduced the Special Prosecutors Bill 1982 and appointed Mr Gyles and Mr Redlich, who have been just as responsible as Mr Justice Stewart in the achievements made so far in this country in the fight against organised crime. So do not point a finger at us and say that we were lax in taking steps to combat organised crime. We did far more in our term of government than the present Government has done, and we did it far more honestly. Let me elaborate a little on that point of honesty. One of the things the Attorney-General says is: 'Look at the powers we are giving the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are giving him power to take civil proceedings'. If we look at the record during the election period we will find that the Opposition put that as part of its policy to the people. When I introduced a private member's Bill to give the Director of Public Prosecutions power to conduct civil proceedings and recover moneys due to the Commonwealth and to the people, the Government within hours announced it was going to do the same thing. It would not have moved an inch if the Opposition had not threatened it with taking parliamentary action. The Government's record is slack, and it continues to be slack. The slackest performance of all is the disgraceful charade we have seen over this whole matter in the last two weeks. The Government's record is weak and dishonest. Let me point to the dishonesty. The Attorney-General is parading a Press release and saying: 'Look what we have done with our task force on extradition treaties. Aren't we good? We have actually got an extradition treaty with Finland'. What a remarkable achievement. We have an extradition treaty with Finland. I know the Attorney-General is reluctant to read anything-he will not read the transcript of the Age tapes and he will not read any of the raw material; if he did he would not be making the stupid statement of the sort he is making today-but if he reads the Stewart Royal Commission report he will see that Mr Justice Stewart told the Government two years ago that an extradition treaty was being negotiated with Finland. It is there in black and white. To come out and say, as the Attorney-General said two days ago, that the task force, which had been established in February of this year, had produced its first remarkable achievement, an extradition treaty with Finland, is an absolute distortion of the truth because the Government was told by Mr Justice Stewart, at the beginning of 1983, that this extradition treaty was being negotiated. The Government has the gall to adopt this dishonest-and I use the word advisedly-position that the extradition treaty with Finland was the result of its great task force on extradition treaties. What an absolute distortion of the facts. If the Government is parading its record on organised crime it should look at its performance with Mr Trimbole. I do not know whether any of the people to whom we are giving taxation assistance to make films are making a film about that, but they should, and they should call it the Keystone Cops. The Government's handling of that matter, from beginning to end, was an absolute shambles. Mr Lionel Bowen —What happened under your Government? Mr N. A. BROWN —I suppose the Attorney General is entitled to interject because his position is pretty hopeless. He says now: 'Your record on extradition treaties with Ireland was pretty hopeless'. I would have to concede that the Whitlam Government's performance was appalling. The Attorney-General can tell Mr Whitlam that when he sees him next, if Mr Whitlam is still talking to him. No government in Australia has taken a proper and responsible attitude to extradition treaties. It is a fair defence for both the Whitlam and Fraser governments that neither government took adequate action on extradition treaties until the problems of organised crime became so apparent and until organised criminals started to use their current method of bribery to obtain passports and forgery of passports. What has the Government done since it was told by the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking that it should be monitoring its extradition treaties, keeping them in working order and making sure that they were effective? The Government has done absolutely nothing about that. The Government says that it has established the National Crime Authority-this powerful body which will get to the bottom of organised crime. We will keep the pressure on the Government and we will be asking how many prosecutions have been brought as a result of the activities of this Authority. We will be expecting some answers. We say that the Authority does not have enough powers. The Government is deficient in exercising its responsibility in not giving the Authority the powers that it needs. We will continue to ask about the results of the National Crime Authority's work and we will expect some answers. In addition to those matters we say to the Government that it should not think that simply by putting the word 'indemnities' into the concocted speech of today it will bring the indemnities issue to an end. I think that the indemnities, as the Government has them set out in the statement, are probably not as adequate as they should be. I do not know what sort of indemnity the Government proposes. I do not know whether the Government proposes the functional indemnity, as it is called, or the more all-embracing indemnity. But it will have to set to work because it has plenty of work ahead of it in working out exactly what sorts of indemnities should be granted. It is not apparent from what the Attorney-General has put to the House today exactly what sorts of indemnities will be granted. He has an obligation to make that apparent. We say in addition to that that there should be a full statement on the terms of reference of the Royal Commission so that everyone knows exactly where they stand and what the Government is proposing about those precise terms. I simply say to the Attorney-General that there should be a detailed statement of what the powers of the Royal Commission and its terms of reference will be. We will want a full statement to satisfy us that Mr Justice Stewart has the time and the resources to carry out his activities. Finally, we will be following what happens in this matter. It is no credit to the Government that at this late stage it should be taking these measures. It is no credit to the Government that it should be taking those measures only as the result of prodding and pushing. Its case has been utterly defenceless right from the beginning. Now, at least, it has been forced, grudgingly and reluctantly at the last gasp, into taking some action. 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 calls upon the Government: (1) to ensure that Mr Justice Stewart is provided with personnel and material resources, including the services of senior counsel and other assistants sufficient for this inquiry to be completed with thoroughness, effectiveness and expedition, and (2) to be satisfied that Mr Justice Stewart's other important inquiries into the Nugan Hand Bank and the ''Mr Asia'' Affair and his work as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority are able to proceed without hindrance or disruption in addition to the further inquiries which are the subject of this Bill'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Moore —I second the amendment. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(12.30) —The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) commenced his speech by indicating that he supported the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill with a few quibbles with which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will deal later in this debate. However, having said that, the honourable member unfortunately but not surprisingly, launched into one of those self-righteous performances of indignation which we hear so often from the Opposition in this place on the basis that it has been the crime buster for years and as if organised crime were in fact somewhat elevated when the Hawke Labor Government came into office in March 1983. He then started on the concern that this Government quite rightly showed in relation to moving on the matter of indemnities. It appears to me that the honourable member for Menzies did not listen to what the Attorney-General had to say. Had he listened one would have hoped that he might have made some attempt in fact to answer what the Attorney-General said in relation to the position adopted by those opposite on this sort of matter. He attacked the Attorney-General as if the Attorney had taken no action in this matter. The fact of the matter is that the Attorney-General was just not prepared to do gown a track which in fact would not have been effective or correct without giving due consideration to the matter. What the Attorney-General said ought to be answered by someone on the other side. It was totally and conveniently ignored by the honourable member for Menzies. I refer to the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth which was referred to by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General indicated that that was presented to the Parliament in December 1982 by the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, QC, on behalf of the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, QC. That laid down some very clear principles to be applied in the grant of an indemnity by the Attorney-General. I want to refer to those principles again because, obviously, no one on the other side listened to what the Attorney-General said in relation to this matter. I think it is absolutely incumbent on somebody from the Opposition to make some answer to what was said by the Attorney-General and the Acting Attorney-General at that time, the honourable member for Menzies, who has just spoken in this place on that issue. Mr N. A. Brown —It is accepted. Mr DUFFY —It is all very well for the honourable member to say that it was accepted. Today he berated the Attorney-General for 20 minutes to half an hour on the basis that he did not act quickly enough in relation to indemnities and that he did not take action, when this is what the honourable member for Menzies said: In principle it is desirable that the criminal justice system should operate without the need to grant indemnities or pardons to persons who participated in offences with a view to these persons giving evidence against the principal offenders . . . Nevertheless, before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or to recommend to the Governor-General the grant of an indemnity-- Mr N. A. Brown —It is a pardon. Mr Howard —It is not an indemnity. There is a difference. Mr N. A. Brown —Read it out correctly. Mr DUFFY —I am sorry. The Attorney-General said: Nevertheless, before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or to recommend to the Governor-General the grant of a pardon, all possible alternative courses must be considered. One possible alternative which must always be considered is to proceed to conviction of the prospective witness in respect of at least some of the offences committed by him before commencements of the trial . . . Senator Durack said: Is the evidence of the person in respect of whom the indemnity or pardon is sought-- Mr N. A. Brown —We are not talking about an indemnity; we are talking about a pardon. Mr DUFFY —I repeat: . . . the indemnity or pardon is sought essential to achieve the conviction of the principal offender? I do not know whether honourable members opposite can read, but that is what Senator Durack said. I repeat: Is the evidence of the person in respect of whom the indemnity or pardon is sought essential to achieve the conviction of the principal offender? The prosecution policy makes this statement in concluding on the principles on grant of indemnity: The ultimate decision to grant an indemnity or recommend grant of a pardon is only made after the most careful consideration of . . . (the) material. Assuming a decision is made to grant an indemnity, the scope of the indemnity should be no wider than the circumstances require. Nobody disagrees with that statement. Honourable members opposite seem very conveniently to have forgotten it when they come in here today and lay at the feet of the Attorney-General totally unfounded allegations to the effect that he has delayed far too long in this matter. Of course, he dealt with that when he set the record straight on a number of matters because it was suggested by honourable members opposite-after the Attorney-General had put the lie to that argument-that he had done some sort of about-face. The next thing the honourable member referred to was organised crime generally. I will deal with that in a moment. He moved on to the Trimbole affair. The shadow Attorney-General compared it with the Keystone Cops. He went on with some nonsense that if anyone wanted to make a film of the Trimbole affair this is how it would be portrayed. The fact is, as the shadow Attorney-General said, it would be a Keystone Cops comedy, with the shadow Attorney-General playing the starring role. There is no doubt that if the Trimbole story was filmed the honourable member for Menzies would be in a starring role. It is a fact that the extradition treaty file in relation to that Trimbole matter was marked: 'No further action required'. It was marked with the date 4 January 1982. Where was the present Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, at that stage? He was certainly not marking on files on 4 January 1982: 'No further action required'. At some stage during this debate let us hope that two questions will be answered. One concerns the change-around by the honourable member for Menzies in relation to his attitude to indemnities as spelt out by him as Acting Attorney-General on behalf of the Attorney-General in this place during the period of the Fraser Government. Secondly, the time is ripe, and it is a great opportunity, for the honourable member for Menzies to give us an explanation about the Trimbole matter and why the file was marked: 'No further action required'. I repeat that the file was dated 4 January 1982. The fact is that none of these matters were properly answered by the honourable member for Menzies as the shadow Attorney-General. The shadow Attorney-General in his speech then moved into another area in which honourable members opposite still seem to me to get some comfort. It becomes more amazing as the matter goes on as to how honourable members opposite get comfort out of it. The shadow Attorney-General referred to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Costigan Royal Commission was set up by the Fraser Government to embark on an attack on the trade union movement through the Ship Painters and Dockers Union. What happened in relation to that really set honourable members opposite back on their heels and put them where they are now. What came out of the Costigan Royal Commission was a saga of the most appalling lack of action by the Fraser Government from 1975 on in relation to the most horrendous tax evasion that had taken place in this country throughout that period. The explosion of tax evasion and tax avoidance during the period of the Fraser Government is something which the Opposition will wear to its eternal disgrace for as long as the Liberal Party of Australia exists. The fact is that the then Government had no idea where the Costigan Commission was leading it. If that Government had known, there is no way that the Costigan Commission would have been set up. Let us now look at the question of organised crime generally. It is an issue which honourable members opposite love to talk about in their self-righteous manner. Honourable members opposite really do talk about the world as if they were the only people concerned about crime, education and moral matters in the community. They trot out the most nauseating and sickening stuff over and over again. The most unfortunate part is that I am starting to think honourable members opposite do not use it just for political reasons but now have reached the ultimate stage of self-delusion and are starting to believe it. That is the sort of nonsense we have to put up with. Let us look at the organised crime position so I can put the record straight. We can be proud of this Government's record in relation to organised crime when it is compared to the pathetic performance honourable members opposite put up during their period of Government, particularly the period 1975 to 1983. Let us look at what has happened under this Government. It was the Hawke Government, not the Fraser Government, which established an independent Director of Public Prosecutions. A year ago, in March 1984, Mr Temby had four lawyers and a few support staff. That was the position. Twelve months later, in March 1985, he has 100 lawyers and many support staff. That is how seriously this Government took the question of crime when it established the post of Director of Public Prosecutions. Within the near future Mr Temby will be in the position of having 150 lawyers and about the same number of support staff. Are honourable members opposite seriously suggesting that a government which acts in this way is not serious about organised crime? Honourable members opposite cannot possibly be serious if they are putting such a stupid proposal. That in fact is what they are on about. That is what was said. The point is that it is not the number of staff the Director of Public Prosecutions has but what they are doing. The fact is that this Government has given the Director of Public Prosecutions-the mob opposite could not have done that because it did not have a director-sufficient resources to enable him to engage in literally thousands of prosecutions. That is a situation that will involve enormously complex cases in many areas. Let us think about some of those areas. One of the most significant areas the Director of Public Prosecutions will be involved in will concern bottom of the harbour prosecutions, an area in which prosecutions have never been launched in this country before. Honourable members opposite had legal opinions which clearly showed that there could have been prosecutions for conspiracy in relation to those matters. What did the then Government do? It did nothing. It allowed that massive tax evasion. Of course, at the same time tax evasion money has to be used somewhere. This was moved into the major narcotic offences and all the other areas we are now talking about. The honourable member for Menzies who today berated the present Attorney-General was the Acting Attorney-General for a large part of the Fraser Government's period in office. I now move to the National Crime Authority. It was this Government, not the Opposition when in government, that established an effective crime authority acting in full co-operation with the States. The Crime Authority would not have worked if it had not been for that co-operation. Honourable members opposite all know that. There is no doubt about that. It was not an easy task for the Government to bring that co-operation about. Again that relates to what we heard today. The shadow Attorney-General came in here and asked: 'Why didn't you do this yesterday; why didn't you do this three weeks ago; why didn't you do that a month ago?' The reason is that the Government acts in a considered way on these matters. The same applied with the National Crime Authority. The Opposition would have gone on with it and not cared what the States said about it. The Opposition would have got it into a worse mess than it was already in because it would not have worked. The establishment of the National Crime Authority was not an easy task, as I said, but it is now established and with the full co-operation of the States it will make a major contribution to fighting organised crime in this country. I move now to the Australian Federal Police. That was a nice performance from the shadow Attorney-General. I go back to 1981 when the Joint Committee of Public Accounts investigated matters involving medifraud. One of the areas looked at concerned the total lack of resources provided to the Australian Federal Police to investigate medifraud. The fact was that the Joint Committee said that the Federal Police did not have anywhere near sufficient resources to fight medifraud or, for that matter, any type of organised crime. The evidence given by the then Acting Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police before that Committee supported that view. I suggest that honourable members opposite start to think about some of those things before they come in here and abuse the present Attorney-General. I refer now to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. The Opposition sat in government from 1975 until it was chucked out in 1983 and did bloody nothing. That is what happened. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that unparliamentary word. Mr DUFFY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry. I withdraw. It was this Government, not the Fraser Government, that increased resources and made an increased commitment to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. It was not honourable members opposite who did that. It was us. This Government has also moved to increase the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions-honourable members opposite could not have done that because they did not have one-to use civil remedies to move against the assets of organised criminals in a way, providing greater deterrence than was the case before he was able to do that. Let us look at the illicit narcotics trade. Honourable members on the other side of the House talk about the drug problem as if it is something that has just suddenly emerged. This Government has again acted in co-operation with the States. That seems to be something members of the Opposition conveniently overlook when they criticise the Government for not acting as quickly as they say they it ought to act; that is, yesterday or the week before or something else. In that area it is necessary, as it was with the National Crime Authority, to have the co-operation of the States. This Government, in co-operation with the States, has moved to ensure the forfeiture of assets of organised criminals, people who prey on this society and destroy the lives of our young people. Why did honourable members opposite not do something about it? When will someone answer those sorts of allegations in this House? Let members of the Opposition go through the record of what they did between 1975 and 1983 and when they were finally turfed out. They did nothing, as I said earlier. It is absolutely sickening to have to listen to the moral self-righteousness that they go on with every time this sort of debate crops up, as if they are paragons of virtue and the only people who know anything about law enforcement. Again, the previous Government did nothing in the narcotics area. That is one of the reasons that this Government has such an enormous problem on its hands today, a problem which it will deal with. We will deal with that problem. We will deal with it through the National Crime Authority in particular. We will deal with it by giving the Australian Federal Police the resources that the miserable lot opposite starved them of right through their term of government. From 1975 to 1983 the Australian Federal Police were starved of resources, to the stage that the then Acting Commissioner said before a joint committee of this House that the Federal Police did not have sufficient resources to fight medifraud or, for that matter, any organised crime. That is the previous Government's record. It is about time honourable members opposite were honest enough to answer some of the allegations that have been made here today. They can all be substantiated and I will wait with some delight to see who answers them. As I said, as to the Australian Bureau of Criminology, we have moved to take civil remedies to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to move against the assets of organised criminals. That is something that would never have crossed the minds of honourable members opposite. Apart from anything else, they had no will to do it and, even if they had had the will, they would not have had sufficient intelligence. That was their problem. They have stumbled on and the only thing they can do here is abuse the Attorney-General and go on to talk about the Costigan Royal Commission. I end where I started. The Costigan Royal Commission blew up in the face of those opposite. That is what happened. The Costigan Royal Commission was set up in an attempt to slur the trade union movement, starting with the painters and dockers, and it all went wrong. It all went wrong for the Fraser Government because the Commissioner decided that there was so much rottenness in this society on the evidence put before him that he was not prepared to protect in any way the sort of people who were involved in tax evasion and those highly contrived methods of tax avoidance that had gone on, on which those opposite, when in government, had an opinion. That debate took place in this House in October 1980. The present Attorney-General led the Opposition at that stage and I had the pleasure of supporting him. We were saying then that the then Government had opinions before it from top silks in this country-not some of those sitting opposite-and that there was no reason why a prosecution could not be launched. Honourable members opposite did not launch any prosecutions; they did not move in the area of tax avoidance until they were taken there yelling and screaming. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.50) —We have seen this morning the full act of a government in some considerable disarray. I have never seen an Attorney-General start off a two-week sitting period in one position and end up on the final day of that sitting not only changing his position totally but also distributing two Bills and, early in the day, a paper which he has to correct. It went round this morning. Mr Lionel Bowen —Which paper? Mr MOORE —The one the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) showed me this morning. He said that it was the one the Attorney-General put out as a preliminary. We have a government which really cannot make up its mind in relation to the tough issues. One has only to read the editorials in the newspapers this morning to see what they consider to be the position of the Government. It is a very shabby job that has occurred. It is one which reflects very poorly on the Government and underscores very much where the Government is really heading-down the drain. It is the sort of stuff that we saw at the end of every government period, except that this one is beginning very early and must be giving concern to a lot of senior Ministers. I can only assume that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who spent the entire time defending the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), was reading the report in the Australian the other day about the Attorney's retiring and wants the job. That must be the reason for his stunning defence of the Attorney-General. What is significant is that the Minister for Communications said not one word about his responsibility in relation to Telecom Australia and the use of the public medium of communication. It was through the use of Telecom's facilities, the bugging of those facilities, that this material was gathered. His responsibility in that matter was not to consistently repeat himself in this House in relation to the doings of the Attorney-General, what the Government did and what we did not do, and repeat it over and again until his time ran out. He did not face up to his direct ministerial responsibilities and what they stood for. What do we have? We have a massive collection of material which has been obtained by illegal means-by telephone tapping. From that vast collection of material we have had, over a period of some years, systematic leaks which have done some damage to the current government and which certainly did some to us in our time. I think we ought to have acted on it more quickly. What are the real questions involved in all this? It is a question of to whom we provide the greatest liberty. What is that in real terms? It is to be able to act free of corruption and free from pressure. We ought to address ourselves to what occurs in society in relation to communications and what responsibilities we have to the public to ensure that the judicial and legal system that we back, is not put under such enormous pressure that the public loses its faith in it. It is up to all members of the House, not only the Government, to assure the public that they can have that confidence and that the system of the day is backed fully by the Government. The public perception at this moment is that there are areas of corruption within governments, courts and officials. I say that because a former Minister of the Crown in New South Wales is up on charges, a judge of the District Court of New South Wales is up on charges, a Chief Magistrate of New South Wales has been convicted and some members of our police forces are subject to some suspicion and internal investigation. It is because of the accounts of such matters that members of the public are concerned. They are concerned that the system under which they live is being challenged, that there are crooks in the game, and they want to see the governments of Australia take some action. It has taken a full fortnight to get the Government to turn around from totally rejecting the tapes. It said that they were frauds. We heard what Mr Wran had to say. 'They are fakes', he said. 'They are only a political hoax on me, poor old Neville.' As the weeks went by, the Opposition prodded and the media came in behind the Opposition's presentation, until the Government gave way to the reality that it had to accept-a further royal commission. It is only through that royal commission that the real truth of some of these matters will come to bear. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in relation to the telecommunications system. It is through taps of the system that this information has become available. A considerable amount of public concern has been raised about the use of those taps. I think we ought to consider the degree of criminal sophistication, the degree of intrusion that crooks of all sorts have made into the private lives of John Citizens of Australia. It is probably necessary to have a wider participation in a debate in relation to phone taps and their appropriate uses. I call upon the Minister, who just spoke in high defence of the Attorney-General, to pay some attention to his own area and produce a Green Paper as the basis of discussion for the use of phone taps in relation to national security and crimes. I suggest that he invite members of the public and the various interest groups-such as the Law Reform Commission, the Civil Liberties Council and the police associations; those that are keenly interested-to contribute to this debate as to where we stand in the use of phone taps within the community. There is no doubt that in the system in which we live we have taken a very open liberal stance in these areas. All parties have defended right down the line-this is not political; we have represented the views of a total society-the right of everybody to free speech and free communication. A question is now raised in this area as we have such a severe challenge to our total system from the crooks who have perpetrated enormous crimes, obtaining horrendous amounts of money from them. Because of that, I think that it is high time that the Government instituted a process, through a Green Paper, to determine what would be an acceptable level of intrusion in this area. Having measured that, there is no doubt there would have to be substantial checks and balances written into the process, and I would not for a moment see any one Minister having responsibility for it; it would be a matter for one or two Ministers or maybe a sub-committee of Cabinet. To leave it in the hands of one Minister could have the potential to develop a great sense of personal 'big brotherness', or his personal style would develop the use of something here or something there. Mr Cadman —Why not give it to Holding? Mr MOORE —It might end up in the Richmond Council. I, therefore, hope that very earnest consideration will be given to these matters. In a very positive sense that could do a lot to allay the public's misgivings in relation to the whole judicial system, the system of criminal- Mr Lionel Bowen —We could extend the Commission to Queensland, of course. Mr MOORE —It will be busy enough in New South Wales! By the time it got out of New South Wales it would know everybody in Australia, because they all go through there. I therefore recommend that to the Government. Mr Young —What about all the horses in Queensland? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will ignore the interjections and speak through the Chair. Mr MOORE —That is the trouble with these racing people in the House; they do not understand the uses of it. I was just about, at that moment, to come to Telecom and the use made by SP bookmakers and the like in that area. Beyond a Green Paper in relation to the use of telephone taps, I recommend that the Minister look at the use of Telecom's resources in the past in relation to SP bookmaking, drug running, race fixing, frauds and organised crime. These are the areas which are causing the public great concern. Because of that, I recommend that that be part of the Green Paper that he might bring forward. The matter before the House today has the support of the Opposition, as the honourable member for Menzies said. It is too slow, too late, and covers lots of areas, but it does heavily underscore what we have been defending for some time. It has taken a fortnight for the Attorney-General to go full cycle from a no royal commission stance to supporting a royal commission. As the Minister for Communications said, he has no idea where it will lead. We certainly do not. A royal commission is a magnificent hunting ground for lots of areas, and I hope that all of those who have the opportunity to be involved, and those who have been involved, will come forward and support the commission-indeed, take up the offer made by the Attorney-General-and make the significant contributions to it that we would all stand for. Madam Deputy Chairman, the Opposition supports the motion. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.01) —The question before the House is a comparatively simple one. I begin by saying that I believe that the people of Australia, and I think all honourable members in this House, could accept as a general proposition that honourable members on all sides of the House are committed to effective government action to deal with the problems of organised crime. In respect of that, I do not claim that all knowledge or all wisdom necessarily lies on the Government side of the House. A positive contribution could be made by members of the Opposition. The question before the House is a comparatively simple one. It is whether this amendment adds to the armoury of the Government in its task in combating the effects of organised crime. In respect of that, the Opposition has answered simply yes. It supports the amendment. If, indeed, in supporting the amendment it had made perhaps some positive criticism and suggested some positive actions, the matter could have been quickly disposed of. I think it a matter of regret for the Parliament and a matter of concern to the general public that, in supporting the legislation, we heard from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) an ill-thought-through, provocative and, in some areas, untruthful attack upon the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). It is to deal with those problems very quickly that I simply want to draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that this Attorney-General was, on the question of indemnities, confronted with a difficult problem. It was not a problem which could be dealt with simply or easily. Mr Justice Stewart had the problem, in trying to complete his inquiry as quickly as possible, of seeking the co-operation of members of the police force in New South Wales who had taped phone conversations in breach of Commonwealth legislation. One can understand and respect the position of Mr Justice Stewart in his desire to get to the bottom of that and his view that, in doing that, he would be assisted by the granting of indemnities. The problem that confronted the Attorney-General was that he had very strong advice from Mr Temby, who also has a responsibility in this matter, first of all, doubting the weight of the evidence and the usefulness of the evidence which would come from the granting of such indemnities and, secondly, advising the Attorney-General against granting such indemnities. That constituted a problem of some political dimension which quite properly the Attorney-General, I think, in the final analysis had to resolve. The Attorney-General has resolved that matter in the legislation that is now before the House. It has been suggested that, in resolving this issue, he has acted slowly, carelessly and not in the best interests of the nation. All those allegations do not stand any proper examination. I refer to the statements in the House today by the honourable member for Menzies when he described the Attorney-General as having been pushed and prodded and the Government as being backed into a corner and the contradictory positions which he alleged had been taken. Let us look at some of those positions. Let us look at the position of the honourable member for Menzies who was, after all, the spokesman for the Opposition on these matters. On 20 March 1985 the contribution of the honourable member for Menzies to the resolution of this difficult and complex issue before the Attorney-General was to refer to the conflicting advice given to the Attorney-General by Mr Temby and by Mr Justice Stewart. I am using his own terms; he referred to the conflicting advice. So the nature and the quality of the advice and the issues involved were fully known and understood by the honourable member for Menzies. He then went on to suggest-his first positive suggestion-that, by virtue of an interview which he described, albeit as an innocent one, there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest and so the Attorney-General should completely divorce himself from any of these decisions. This is the man who, a matter of days later, is saying in this Parliament that the Attorney-General has not acted as quickly as he should. One is entitled to the view that political points from time to time will be taken. But has there ever been a less efficacious argument, a more unworthy argument, than that of the shadow Attorney-General, understanding the nature of the issue that has to be resolved by the Attorney-General, when in this Parliament today, in carping about the need for urgent action in order to advance what he would see as some kind of political advantage to the Opposition less than a matter of days ago, he said: 'Look, we understand the nature of the problem. We also understand that the Attorney-General had a completely innocent interview when he was a member of the Opposition. But we think the struggle against organised crime can be advanced if the Attorney-General stands back and divorces himself from all of this- from the knowledge, from the detailed work that has to be done.'? What kind of positive contribution is that? Let us get to the question of credibility in respect of this matter. On the very same day in this House in answer to that question, in answer to the issues that had to be resolved, on the question of the indemnities of members of the police force, the Attorney-General said: Mr Temby QC advises me that they- that is, the police- are not entitled to an indemnity, and he is the Director of Public Prosecutions. I ask the House to weigh those words carefully because here is a statement made by the Attorney-General in answer to a question proffered by the shadow Attorney-General in which the Attorney-General quite clearly set out the nature of the problem. I repeat that he said: Mr Temby QC advises me that they- the police- are not entitled to an indemnity, and he is the Director of Public Prosecutions. That seems to me to be a fair, accurate and appropriate statement but in the hands of the honourable member for Menzies and this desperate Opposition, an Opposition which would like to suggest to the people of Australia that organised crime is actually an invention of the Hawke Labor Government, how did that answer become transformed and distorted? The honourable member for Menzies, in a matter of public importance raised in the House by him, transformed that statement, an accurate statement of what Mr Temby had advised the Attorney-General, into a statement in which, in the words of the honourable member for Menzies, the Attorney-General has said that the police are criminals. I have looked at the Hansard very carefully and I have looked at the reports very carefully. Nowhere in an answer given by the Attorney-General to the shadow Attorney-General have those terms been used. In a glib interpretation of the answer given by the Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies has taken those words, interpreted them in a way which would give him maximum political advantage and put them into the Attorney-General's mouth. He has then come in here saying what a dreadful thing it is for an Attorney-General to make the unprecedented statement that the police who took these tapes were criminals. I have had the benefit of reading the advice that Mr Temby proffered to the Attorney-General. He had some very harsh comments to make about the activities of these police, about both their reluctance to co-operate with Mr Justice Stewart and their seeking, not merely from the Commonwealth but also from the State of New South Wales, an indemnity for actions which they must have known were illegal. These are important issues. They go not merely to the question of fighting organised crime but to the rights and the liberties of the Australian citizen. In dealing with these matters the people of Australia are entitled to the view that, if the Attorney-General has been diligent in his responses that ought to be a matter of proper and effective criticism by the Opposition. But they are not entitled to expect what they have received today-a deliberate and wilful distortion of the statements made to this House by the Attorney-General for the purposes of seeking a narrow political advantage. The fact is that the Attorney-General has responded, I believe appropriately and with great propriety, to a set of alternative views from Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby, both of whom have great responsibility in this area. In respect of the latest piece of advice he has received he has immediately come into this Parliament today with legislation to deal with this issue. He said: 'No, the Opposition cannot criticise it'. But we got an intemperate, carping, ill-informed and dishonest statement. The damage that that does-not to the credibility of the honourable member for Menzies; frankly, that is his problem-is to suggest to the people of Australia that the Attorney-General has acted with a lack of speed and a lack of propriety in this matter, which is completely untrue. The suggestion that has been made by the honourable member for Menzies does him no credit and, when it is put forward on behalf of the Opposition, it does the Opposition no credit. Of course, the Opposition wants to make a political point, and any political point will do for this Opposition, irrespective of whose reputation it damages or which particular position it produces. The two parts of the second reading amendment will not be accepted by the Government. The first part is designed to ensure that Mr Justice Stewart is provided with personnel and material resources. In Cabinet this morning the decision was made to grant Mr Justice Stewart an additional million and a half dollars to deal with these matters. The action has already been taken. Mr N. A. Brown —But it is reasonable, isn't it? Mr HOLDING —I think it is reasonable. The honourable member might want to add another million or two, but I would have thought that that is not unreasonable. Mr N. A. Brown —The amendment is reasonable, surely. Mr HOLDING —I put it this way: I am telling the honourable member that the Government has already taken action. If the Government is taking action, I do not know why he wants to delay the House. He is the one who is saying that we have to act urgently in this matter. The second part states: . . . to be satisfied that Mr Justice Stewart's other important inquiries is into the Nugan Hand Bank and the 'Mr Asia' Affair and his work as the Chairman of the National Crime Authority are able to proceed without hindrance or disruption in addition to the further inquiries which are the subject of this Bill. The implication of that is, of course, that there may be or could be some hindrance to Mr Justice Stewart's inquiries. Of course, the fact is that Mr Justice Stewart, as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, will be in a position, as a result of the work that is being done by him in this other area, to immediately transfer any knowledge that he gains there to his other position. He has been made fully aware of the position. The positions that have emerged in this Bill, as is known to the Opposition, came about after full consultation with Mr Justice Stewart and indeed with Mr Temby. Despite that, we have an amendment which is concerned to make ridiculous points-I do not know whether the honourable member for Menzies knew of the Cabinet decision to provide an additional million and a half dollars or whether he applied his mind to that-which are evidence of the fact that the whole approach of the Opposition, faced with a piece of legislation designed to move this thing forward expeditiously, is to come up with another plodding and irrelevant amendment in the hope that someone out there, someone in the broader community, might feel that the Government is not responding in a positive way to the problems of dealing with organised crime. For those reasons, the amendment will not be accepted. I believe I have dealt with the lack of credibility in the thoroughly false statements which have been made about the actions of the Attorney-General in this matter. Having looked at the record, I for one would compliment the Attorney-General on dealing with this matter in a thoroughly principled way by bringing into the House legislation designed to meet the problems. I condemn the carping and irresponsible statements that have been made here. The Opposition has a duty in this House to come forward with positive criticisms in terms of the problems of organised crime that confront this community. To date, any objective analysis of its position on this matter could only lead to the conclusion that it is more concerned to score any kind of political point, no matter how low, no matter how irresponsible, than to try to assist this Government with its responsibility in meeting the problems that all of us have to face in dealing with organised crime. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.18) — Today we have heard from the Government three speeches of grinding irrelevance as it seeks to make a virtue of surrender, surrender to the Opposition, surrender to public opinion. We all know-it has been said before in this House-the scorn, derision and contempt, that has been poured on the Opposition over the months because of the way in which the Opposition has pursued the Age tape material. Finally we get a decision from the Government which is a chapter in a history of gross incompetence and that decision is to do precisely what the Opposition has been urging it to do. Why is it that there has been this change of opinion? Is it not crucial to ask'. How is it that the Government came to change its view about indemnities, and about a royal commission? The Government would have us believe that it was a matter of mature, careful, slow, reflection. Well, God knows, it was slow; mature it certainly was not, careful it most certainly was not. But a hint of the real reason is to be found in an answer which was given by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on 25 March, when the Leader of the Opposition asked this question: When did the Attorney-General first learn that the interceptions had continued from 1981 to 1984? How many interceptions was he advised took place in that period? What action has he taken to ascertain the identity of those involved, the instructions given to set up the interceptions, and the use made of those interceptions? It will be recalled that we had only just learnt that the interceptions had continued up until 1984. The answer which the Attorney-General gave, on the point, was this: . . . it would have been in December. It was in December of 1984 and yet it was not until well after mid-March 1985 that the Australian people got any hint of the continuance of these interceptions. It was perfectly open to the Attorney-General to make a statement detailing the fact that interceptions had taken place through to 1984, the nature of those interceptions and the action that the Government was going to take, but he did not. It had to come out after a series of questions. What was the reason for this manifestation of apparent frankness? It is a curious thing that on the previous weekend there was an interview with a policeman who made allegations about the interceptions continuing up until now. It is also a very curious thing that a letter was written by a concerned policeman, apparently a copy of that letter has been sent to Mr Greiner. That concerned policeman blew the whistle on the New South Wales Government and at the same time planted a bomb which went up underneath the Attorney-General. It then became apparent to everybody in the know-the Attorney-General may have an answer to this and I will be very glad to hear it if there is one-that it could no longer be kept quiet, that the interceptions had continued up and through 1984. Why were we not advised immediately he knew of it? Can any answer be given to that? It was surely in the public interest that this House be told and that the Australian people be told. Let me move to the amendment. The reason for the amendment has been outlined here and the honourable member for Menzies has spoken on it. The purpose, in short, is to authorise Mr Justice Stewart to use intercepted information for the purposes of his inquiry, that is, the inquiry which he is to conduct. It is to authorise those in possession of illegally obtained information to communicate that information to Stewart J. and to do it in a manner which will not subject those persons to an offence. One might say: So far, so good. It is then to authorise Mr Justice Stewart to communicate intercepted material to the law enforcement agencies-they have been named-if the material relates to an offence or a possible offence. Honourable members will recall the Attorney-General saying in the House, amongst other things that, if an offence was disclosed, that was to be reported by Mr Justice Stewart, who was also to report, I understand, to the Attorney-General-I invite him to correct me now if I misheard him-on the admissibility of evidence. Clearly, what the Government has in mind, and I support it, is that Mr Justice Stewart is to obtain, so far as he can, admissible evidence from the intercept material which can be used to prove criminal charges. We would all support that. What is going to be the position? Will that be the case? Has this Government thought about the very recent decision of the High Court, which was handed down in the case of Hilton v. Christopher and others? The Attorney-General referred to it in passing. That was a decision of a five-bench High Court. The bench split 3:2. The minority, made up of Mr Justice Mason and Mr Justice Deane, expressed the view that evidence which had been obtained illegally-that is, intercepts-could not be admitted into evidence because to do so was contrary to the Telecommunications (Interception Act) 1979. If that decision were to be changed by a further application to the High Court and the two justices-Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Brennan-sat, the result would be that none of the material which is to be referred to Mr Justice Stewart, and which he is obliged to refer to law enforcement agencies in the circumstances clearly set out in the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, could be used. Proposed new section 7BA (4) states: Where, in the course of holding an inquiry referred to in sub-section (2), the Honourable Donald Gerard Stewart obtains a document or information that relates, or that may relate, to the commission of an offence, or evidence of the commission of an offence, against a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, he may, if in his opinion it is appropriate to do so, give the document or . . . information . . . to- any one of a number of the listed law enforcement agencies. The purpose of the exercise is to prosecute criminals. Lest it be thought that a re-hearing of the very recent issue which has gone before the High Court is unlikely, I refer to today's Australian where we see, in a report on page 3, that an application has been made to quash the warrants which were originally made in the Hilton case and on which the evidence against Mr Hilton and others apparently rests. Does anyone really think that someone faced with a case which depends upon intercepted evidence will not take that case to the High Court? An example is conspiracy to commit murder. What would be the consequence of the High Court, with the two additional justices sitting, coming to the conclusion that the minority view was right? That would frustrate everything that we are seeking here to do. I therefore propose that the Government should accept an amendment along the following lines. I am sorry I have not had time to type it out, but we have had rather short notice of this debate and it is something which occurred to me as I was examining the Bill. I suggest that, at the end of proposed new section 7BA, the following be inserted: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, that subject otherwise to the rules as to admissibility of evidence, documents or information falling within section 7BA(1) or oral evidence of intercepts may be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings. Unless we do something like that we may be engaged in a perfectly fruitless exercise, and that would be simply another chapter in incompetence. The Government must now be on clear and plain notice of that. I ask the Attorney-General to give some thought to that and ask his advisers to do so also. I now move on to one or two other matters. The next point that I wish to make relates to the terms of section 7BA(1). I understand that we are going into Committee so I will not take up time on this. I simply raise the question now so that the Attorney-General will understand what the question is. The power to disclose without being subject to a penalty is confined to what is called 'unlawfully obtained material'. That material is further defined as meaning: . . . a document or information . . . that discloses the commission of an offence or the possible commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a Territory. In passing, I ask why do we not have the words 'a law of a State' in there as well, since we are, after all, concerned with that when we come to section 7BA(4). Putting that blunder to one side, the question that needs to be asked is: How is a person in possession of material that Mr Justice Stewart should see going to make for himself the decision as to whether or not that material discloses the commission or possible commission of an offence? What is he likely to do? If there is any doubt he will not hand it over because, if he hands over material that does not disclose an offence or the possible commission of an offence, he has no indemnity. Therefore, it is plain that the definition needs to be enlarged. That, I think, is the third blunder which has been demonstrated in this Bill, brought forward today by the Attorney-General, proudly announcing that he has solved it all. There are one or two other matters that I would like to touch upon before I sit down. First of all, I would like to say something about what has been said by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). He has raised some questions which his Government should be answering. First of all, he talked about the 'no further action required' file, which he said was dated 4 January 1982. We have heard the Attorney-General tell this House: 'There was a lost treaty, the lost treaty turned up in a drawer somewhere and, dear me, these things happen, but it happened during your time'. Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us whether the treaty had been signed. It had not, I would assume. Mr Lionel Bowen —Oh, come on! It was initialled. Mr SPENDER —It was initialled. Was it initialled between the governments? Can he tell us what was done by him when the Trimbole question arose to see what the state of extradition was between Ireland and Australia? Will he tell why, in the time between learning that Trimbole was in Ireland and making the application to the Irish court, an extradition treaty was not concluded between the two countries in the briefest possible time, particularly as there was a copy lying around in the drawer? It would have been a matter of great ease, one would think. The Attorney would have asked his Department: What do we know about Ireland? What treaties do we have with Ireland? Somebody would have said: 'Look, we have something sitting in the drawer; we had better dig it out'. That is the first question that he would have asked. That question was obviously not asked by him. Mr Lionel Bowen —Oh, come on; wake up! Mr SPENDER —Well, let the Attorney tell us what the fact is. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the matter relevant to the Bill before the House? Mr SPENDER —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is, because it has been raised by the Minister who spoke on the subject. We know in this House that anything the Minister says must be relevant. That, at least, is the ruling which we in opposition have experience of getting. The Stewart recommendations told the Government to monitor the treaties. Why has that not been done? Why was it not done in Trimbole's case? How is it that this Attorney-General can come here talking about a lost treaty without telling us what was involved, whether it was a treaty, when it was signed and who knew about it? How is it that he can say: 'Look, when I came to Trimbole, as with any other matter, I acted with the kind of diligence that you would expect of me'. We know the kind of diligence that we expect of this Attorney-General as he bumbles along, changing and surrendering in his confused and, I am sorry to say, disturbed manner. What do we have today? We have a major defeat by this Government. It is not a question of something novel coming up. We have the Attorney accepting what the Opposition has asked for from the very start, under the guise of saying to the Opposition: 'You are wrong and we were right. All I have been doing is getting things in order'. We find that we have before us a Bill which is so framed as to frustrate the intent that this Government apparently seeks to achieve. Let me go over the three points again. First of all, it is intended that the material that Mr Justice Stewart is going to see should be available for the law enforcement authorities to prosecute criminals. We know that the High Court may rule, and certainly it is likely that it will be called upon to rule, that this material is wholly inadmissible. Yet nothing has been done about that by this Government. We know, as the shadow Attorney-General has pointed out, that the Attorney-General says one thing in his second reading speech-that is, that the interceptions are to stop-and yet plainly in the Bill itself, which he has brought before the House, it is contemplated that the material which is to go to Mr Justice Stewart and which may be covered by the indemnity will include material that becomes available in the future because of future intercepts. We have the situation that those who may wish to disclose material will have to make a judgment as to whether or not that material would support a criminal conviction or may possibly lead to one, and unless it does the material will not be covered by an indemnity. These are the sorts of questions this Government must look at. If it is truly concerned about dealing with the whole question of the Age tapes and the other material, if it is deeply concerned with making sure that prosecutions take place as a result of Mr Justice Stewart's enlarged terms of reference, the only sensible thing it can do is to plug the holes which apparently exist in the Bill now before the House. I would agree with one thing that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said. I hope that all of us in this House are concerned to do as much as we can about organised crime. But if the Attorney-General and those with him are concerned to do as much as they can about organised crime, they will agree to some amendments which can be put through very quickly, which will enlarge the net and overcome the kind of technical problems which otherwise might entirely frustrate the intent of Mr Justice Stewart's work. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.38) —I just want to advert to what the member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said in a rather ponderous speech. We all know of the recent decision of the High Court in the Hilton case, but the honourable gentleman concentrated more on the minority decision than the majority decision. The majority decision made very clear that the Court would use its discretion as to what evidence could be admitted. I do not know why we waste so much time arguing about the fact that in the future two other judges might be appointed who would reverse the decision. Bunning v. Cross said very much the same thing. It is not really new matter. Admissibility of evidence is subject to discretion. We are looking at the question of illegality and to what extent it can be overlooked with the granting of an indemnity. The honourable member for North Sydney also wanted to know how it is that somebody would be able to submit evidence not knowing whether he was going to get indemnity or not. It is a good point, but the Commissioner makes the point that he will invite anybody to submit what information he has without any identification of himself, so there is no problem in that regard. If the information can lead to a prosecution of course an indemnity will be recommended. Mr Spender —Without identifying themselves? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, in the initial stage. In other words, we have to get to that position as to who is entitled to indemnity not knowing at that stage whether he has evidence that will lead to a prosecution. That is a matter of procedure which I can tell the honourable member the Commissioner feels will satisfy the position. Let me come to the other point, the issue of why something was not done before. The letters patent now existing relate to the Terrence Clark case and were given in 1981, I might add. For the benefit of the honourable member, Trimbole left this country in 1981 and nobody did anything about that. I make the point that there were letters patent at that time that related to those sorts of matters but the government of the time did not see fit to prevent people leaving the country. The honourable member ought to address his mind to that. The real issue is why the terms of reference are now to be expanded. The terms of reference I feel have to be expanded. I notice all Opposition members agree. It is obvious that there might have been illegal interception right up to the present. There is no evidence of it, but that might have been the case, so we are not running away from the issue of all of a sudden having to expand the terms of reference. The terms of reference relate to the authenticity of material which both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby say would not be admissible in any prosecution. That is the issue. So on the issue of admissibility, of the worth of the material, Mr Temby properly gave advice that we could not give an indemnity on that because it would not lead to anything. That is perfectly consistent with the principles established over a long period, and established in this House by a statement made in 1982. One just does not give indemnity when there is no likelihood of a prosecution. Both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby have that view. I have had to take the view, as there may be other material not yet available, that we should explore the issue of indemnity there. Both Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby agree that if there is evidence, and there is none at the moment, if there is anybody with evidence that can come forward with evidence that would lead to a prosecution or given information that might lead to a prosecution, an indemnity will be considered. Do not let us waste too much more time on that issue. There is a clear distinction. The question of interceptions after this date raises a good point. Cabinet today was aware of that and was concerned about it. I was instructed to tell the Parliament that we would not be approving interceptions after this date. How will we control it? We will control it in the letters patent, and that is the position. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) raised matters by way of an amendment whilst not opposing the Bill. He is worried about whether Mr Justice Stewart is satisfied. That is the second part of his amendment. I can assure him Mr Stewart has told me that he is satisfied. The reason is that he has completed most of his inquiries. There is another very interesting point. He feels that if he can get some further evidence it will enable him to finalise one of the inquiries in a matter that I cannot give the actual details of. So it is very helpful to Mr Justice Stewart and he has no difficulties with the matter. In fact it will certainly help every aspect of the matters referred to in the second part of the amendment. In relation to the first part of the amendment, there is no doubt that adequate resources will be made available as and when they are required. At present we are entering into this inquiry not knowing what might be the nature of the evidence that has to be tested. I do not want to delay the House. There is not a lot of time. I thank members for their contributions. I think my ministerial colleagues have adequately answered the questions of the Opposition not understanding the significance of what is the difference between the two letters patent; the Opposition not understanding the worthlessness of the Age material; the Opposition not understanding the position it announced when in government that we do not give an indemnity where there is no likelihood of a prosecution. I think today's statement clearly indicates the Government is very anxious to proceed with finding out whether there is any evidence at all. If there are chances of prosecutions, indemnity will be granted. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.46) —In view of the very short time that we have had, I have not had the opportunity since I have been sitting here whilst the debate has been going on to draw up an amendment of the kind that I had in mind, except very recently. I did explain that to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I put it to him quite sincerely that it is all very well for him to talk about Bunning v. Wong and to say that the recent decision of the High Court just deals with the same point. We have to look at two questions. The High Court has decided-in Bunning v. Wong, and at other times as well-that the question as to whether illegally obtained evidence is allowed to go into evidence depends on a judgment between the public interest in securing a conviction and the public interest in not supporting the illegal obtaining of evidence. That, of course, is one issue. But what the High Court had decided in the very recent case of Hilton v. Christopher has nothing to do with that issue. The decision in the High Court in Hilton's case, by a majority, was that section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act does not prohibit the admission into evidence of information obtained by an illegal interception. That is the majority decision. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Wilson and Mr Justice Dawson were of that view. That means, of course, that when any question arises, so long as that decision stands as to the admission into evidence of illegally obtained interceptions, that can be done subject always to Bunning v. Wong, which the Attorney-General has referred to, when the court would be able to decide whether or not it should allow the illegally obtained evidence go into evidence. The point which I have put to the Attorney-General and to the House, and which I wish to put again-with any luck at all my amendment will have been typed by the time I have finished putting the argument-is this: We are dealing with a mass of material. It seems likely from all that we have heard about the Age tapes that this material is going to contain evidence that would go to prove that individuals have been guilty of very serious criminal offences such as, for example, conspiracy to commit a murder. The Attorney-General wants that evidence to be available before the courts. As I understand what he said in his second reading speech and as I understand the Bill, that is the intent, so that a real use can be made of the material. But the point that I put to him-it is not a hypothetical point-is that we all know that people involved in organised crime have a lot of money and with a split High Court on such an important question it is very likely, so it seems to me, that the High Court is going to be asked to review its decision. If Mr Justice Murphy is not able to sit, and say it is a six-man High Court, the result will be that the opinion of the Chief Justice will prevail. I feel rather as though I was at Custer's last stand when instead of the Red Indians turning up the cavalry has arrived with reinforcements. But, if we are to make sure that a seven-man High Court cannot overturn the decision which has already been given, the only way we can do it is by amending the Act. I move: Clause 4, page 3, at the end of proposed section 7BA, add the following sub-section: '(6) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, but subject otherwise to the rules as to admissibility of evidence, documents or information or oral evidence of interceptions falling within sub-section (1) may be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings.'. That is what the Attorney seeks to achieve, so why does he not put it beyond doubt? That is all I ask. I would put the matter beyond doubt. I do not want to say anything further upon the subject. I have moved the amendment. The Attorney-General says that that is what he wants to achieve. I accept that, but let us put it beyond doubt. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(1.52) —We are very short of time. I thank the Opposition for its co-operation. I understand what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) says. At the moment, of course, we are not in jeopardy but he is making the point that the High Court might change and therefore the rules of law might change from the point of view of evidence. Mr Spender —There might be a Full High Court hearing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There might be, but I will give him an undertaking that if we find any difficulties in this area we will bring the matter back. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.53) —My object in participating in this debate is to make a contribution towards redressing the balance of political debate in Australia and to combat the propaganda of the proponents of free-market ideology. This ideology is increasingly permeating conservative Liberal and National Party decision-making throughout Australia and is traditionally associated with the rhetoric-we will get to the National Party in a minute-but not the practice of the conservative parties in Australia. That conservative ideology has as its basic premise the economic law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest. Thus, if individuals in society end up living in poverty or on the unemployment scrap-heap, the conservatives say it is that individual's fault. I believe that this is a dangerous and unjust creed to preach and one which has clearly as its end target an attack on the public sector and government expenditure which, in turn, is a crucial factor in determining the quality of life of all Australians. The public sector is not only a support to it is an- Mr Goodluck —You have been reading too many books. Mr TICKNER —It is an affliction that the honourable member for Franklin will never suffer from. The public sector is not only a support to and a condition necessary for the development of the Australian economy; its activities are also necessary for the personal development and freedom of the Australian people. Those who condone an inefficient and bureaucratic public sector will get no support from me because I regard it as essential that the public sector be a pace-setter in efficient administrative practices and public accountability. In the current debate on taxation reform the views of the so-called Liberal Party dries are increasingly reflected in the public comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who, as we all know, has to pander to that section of the Party to maintain his tenuous hold on the Liberal Party leadership. The views of those members of the Liberal and National parties assert that the overall level of taxation in Australia is too high and, related to that, that the size of the public sector in Australia is too large and has also to be reduced. They are the exponents and champions of the elitist creed which is best described in the phrase 'private affluence and public squalor'. Both the assertions they promote have no basis in fact and are clever emotive tools of those hard line free market theorists in the Liberal Party who are attempting to build public support for their ideology. To lay the first point to rest, when a comparison is made between Australia and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, it can be readily seen that Australia is not amongst the highest taxed countries. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The taxation level in Australia falls well below the OECD average. The last comprehensive OECD survey of trends in tax levels showed that while total tax receipts in Australia rose from 22.6 per cent of GDP in 1955 to 30.8 per cent in 1980 it was a much lower increase than was evident in other Western industrialised countries. We are still below the OECD average for 1980 of 35.8 per cent. In case that is not clear to honourable members opposite, let me spell it out. Those people who claim that the size of the taxation cake in Australia is too high do not tell the people of Australia that the following countries had a higher overall level of taxation expressed as a percentage of GDP than Australia in the last year for which figures are available: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. All those countries had a lower overall tax level than Australia. I particularly wish to highlight the fact that although the overall level of taxation in Australia is lower than in most OECD countries, the proportion collected through personal income taxes is considerably higher. The problem is not that the overall level of taxation is too high but that those who can least afford it have been hardest hit by the tax slug. Whereas individuals paid 32.9 per cent of total tax receipts in 1955, rising to 44.3 per cent in 1979, the share paid by corporations fell from 15.9 per cent in 1959 to only 10.3 per cent in 1979. Thus by world standards Australia collects a very high proportion of its total revenue from personal income tax. On a comparative basis, of the OECD countries Australia has the second highest proportion of overall income taxes to total taxes. This unjust tax burden on the average Australian wage and salary earner and on families, including families in my electorate of Hughes, is something that this Government is determined to correct; something that honourable members opposite did nothing about over all their sorry decades in government. The present taxation system represents an intolerable and grossly unfair state of affairs. The richest sector of the economy is paying proportionately less of the overall tax burden while the majority-the lower and middle income earners-are expected by the Liberal and National parties to pay proportionally more. We reject that creed. Behind all of this Liberal Party ethos lies the scandal of the tax avoidance industry. It thrived under the previous Government and still the Opposition seeks to protect it. Mr Speaker, I return to the central thrust of my contribution. I condemn the free market advocacy of a reduced public sector. It is appropriate to examine in this regard Australia's level of government outlays as a proportion of GDP as compared to OECD countries. That is what we do not see the conservatives doing. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies unanimously support research into the strategic defence initiative, as does Japan. I ask the Prime Minister on what grounds he justifies his Government's intended rejection of any United States invitation to participate in research into the strategic defence initiative, as announced by his Defence Minister yesterday? I also ask why this Government is again running away from support for the United States and our friends and allies in the difficult but necessary matter of strategic competition with the Soviet Union? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, as distinct from yesterday, when a question on this matter was asked, the Minister for Defence has now received a letter from Secretary Weinberger. That was received this morning. We have not had the opportunity of discussing it or examining it in detail. Nevertheless, that does not prevent me from making some observations in response to the question from the honourable member. I say at the outset- Mr Aldred —You have already announced rejection. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —Not only do I and the Government deplore, but I believe the overwhelmingly majority of the Australian people deplore, the way in which this question was asked. It was premised upon a proposition and an assertion that this Government is in some sense running away from its obligations and commitments to its alliance partner, the United States. One would have thought, as I have had cause to say before in this place, that the statements of the President of the United States of America, the Secretary of State of the United States, and all other spokesmen for the United States Administration, would have been statements that would have been accepted by those opposite. If honourable members opposite do not accept those statements, do not beat around the bush. What they are saying is that the President of the United States, Secretary of State Shultz, and all the other spokesmen are liars. If honourable members on the other side the House want to embrace that position they are welcome to it, but if they do they will be judged, and judged appropriately, by the people of this country. The facts clearly are- Mr Aldred —Why did you announce rejection? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce has asked his question. Mr HAWKE —The facts clearly are that without equivocation the President and other spokesmen have made it quite clear that the relationship between Australia and the United States is on the firmest possible footing, that they value this country and this Government as firm and reliable allies. It does nothing but an extreme disservice to the basic security interests of this country that those opposite should seek- Mr Aldred —You are the one who has done the disservice. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bruce. Mr HAWKE —Should seek for their own miserable purposes to try to bring that into question. Mr Aldred —Do you or do you not support the SDI? Mr HAWKE —Let me go from that general basis to the specific question- Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Bruce. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the honourable member for Bruce be suspended from the service of the House. Mr Peacock —If I may speak, Mr Speaker, on this occasion the language used by the Prime Minister to imply that my honourable friend was calling the President a liar was incorrect. He even degenerated to terms such as 'his miserable purposes'. These are not the words and, I trust, not the intent normally of a Prime Minister dispassionately discussing a matter. I would ask that you reconsider what you have put to the House, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bruce received adequate warning. He defied the Chair. Question put: That the honourable member for Bruce be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, RBeazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Darling, E. E. McGauran, P. J.Hollis, C. Wilson, I. B. C.Dawkins, J. A. Dobie, J. D. M.Klugman, R. E. Andrew, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Bruce thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, the facts are that when I was in Washington at the beginning of last month I was able to sit down with President Reagan, Secretary of State Shultz, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, their advisers and my own and have an entirely rational discussion about this issue in which I put without equivocation the clear position of the Australian Government. I was able to say to the President that we in no way questioned the integrity of his approach and the approach of the United States Administration. In saying that, let me parenthetically observe that I repudiate any of this propagandist assertion that may come from some quarters that what the United States Government is about is to create a situation in which it would be able to utilise a first strike capacity. I completely repudiate that as propagandist nonsense. We were able, calmly and rationally, to discuss that with the President of the United States and his advisers. We did it rationally and in a way in which our arguments were listened to. While they would not have been embraced, they were accepted by the President and his advisers as positions put in good faith by the Prime Minister of this country on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. I simply say that it is a great tragedy that when the President and his advisers are able to accept the position of this Government as one being put in good faith, the Opposition of this country cannot do the same thing. The fact is that there are men and women of goodwill within the conservative spectrum of politics in the United States, as there are among the allies of the United States, who do not embrace the SDI initiative. I do not think, for instance, that Sir Geoffrey Howe of the United Kingdom Government would in the lexicon of politics be put down as a raving left wing lunatic. Nevertheless, Sir Geoffrey Howe has expressed his reservations about the SDI program. In other words, at the same time as one can accept the integrity with which the President and the Administration of the United States approach this issue, which I and the Government accept, it is possible to entertain serious doubts as I and my Government and many people on the conservative side of politics within the United States and in conservative parties around the world have. In other words, one is dealing with an issue of the most fundamental importance. This is not some miserable partisan issue. One is dealing with questions which go to the very issue of whether this world will be able to survive the great danger of a nuclear holocaust and whether in fact men and women will be able to survive in the future on this planet. This is the nature of the issue which is involved here. It becomes people in politics in this country and elsewhere to approach this issue not only with the seriousness that it deserves but also with the seriousness which the United States Administration itself displays in being prepared to allow any discussions with others. Let me make it quite clear that we have put our position to the United States Administration. The integrity of this Government has been accepted. I remind those on the other side of the House that it was after I had discussions with the President and his advisers and put the Government's position on that issue that the President issued the statement he did which put properly the relationship between the United States and the Government of this country at the highest possible level. In other words, having heard our position on this issue he reiterated his conviction on the importance and the enduring strength of our alliance relationship. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Chief Fusitu'a, MP, from Tonga, a former regional representative of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER —While I am on my feet I might also add that I note that present in the gallery for the first time since his retirement is the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony. I am sure he feels at home today. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr O'NEIL —Can the Minister for Transport inform the House what progress has been made towards the implementation of an early retirement scheme for employees of Australian National Railways Commission and when the benefits of such a scheme might become available? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question and I also commend him for his efforts on behalf of the South Australian employees of Australian National. The honourable member is a great battler for the people of Grey. Australian National, like many other railway systems, has been through a very difficult time in recent years because of the impact of the drought upon the revenues of the Commission and competition from other forms of land transport. When we came to office we very quickly set about trying to remedy the problems facing the Commission. One of our first actions was to amend the relevant legislation so as to give the Commission greater responsibility and freedom in the market-place and to enable it more effectively to compete with other forms of transport. In addition to that we have been in the process of establishing a railways industry council which will comprise representatives from the State systems, the State Ministers for Transport, this Government and the Australian National Railways Commission. This council is proposed in order to develop a better working relationship between the various systems, particularly in regard to cross-country transport from coast to coast, and also to improve the financial performance of Australian National. When those kinds of changes are made, or any changes, particularly in an industry like the railway industry, they bring about uncertainty and anxiety. As part of the overall strategy that the Government has developed it is establishing an optional early retirement scheme for employees of Australian National in both South Australia and Tasmania. The offsets of that new scheme will be an improvement in productivity for the employees concerned and the modernisation of work practices and performance. That scheme will enable employees over 55 years of age to take early retirement. Already, almost 500 employees have indicated their desire to do that. The cost of the scheme-the amount has been set by the Government-at this stage is some $16m. I am confident that it will produce a better result. In conclusion, I commend the battler from Grey for the work that he does on behalf of Australian National. He is a great railway man. Mr PEACOCK —I remind the Prime Minister that the Soviet Union walked out of the Geneva disarmament talks in November of 1983 because of the proposed deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe and, moreover, that the Soviet Union subsequently demanded that the United States of America withdraw its missiles or agree in advance to do so as a condition for reopening negotiations. In light of the fact that disarmament negotiations have now resumed in Geneva, despite the Soviet demands not being met, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether a major factor in the Soviet Union's resumption of these disarmament talks was its reaction to the strategic defence initiative? Mr HAWKE —It is the case that many analysts believe that the initiative of the United States Administration in this area was a factor in the decision of the Soviet Union to agree to a resumption of the talks. It would be quite futile to deny that obvious fact. As to what weight is to be given to that element, there is no one here or elsewhere who can be definitive about it. But I would not attempt in any way to ignore that this initiative is put as one of the elements. If we proceed from that to what would seem to be the logic of what the Leader of the Opposition is getting at, let us look at more recent events. Honourable members would have noticed that in the United States this week the President of the United States had a very tough battle to get passage, first in the Senate and latterly in the House of Representatives, of legislation in regard to the MX missile. It is very interesting that in his successful attempt to get the numbers in respect of his position on the MX missile issue, he brought the chief negotiator back from Geneva. The facts are that in the House of Representatives there was a margin, as I recall, of about six votes. Part of the argument put by the President and those supporting him was that the position of the United States should not be prejudiced in the negotiations in Geneva. Is it being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members opposite that nearly half of the members of the House of Representatives in the Congress are treacherous and are traitors to the interests of the US because they rejected the argument of the President and of the chief negotiator? Are honourable members opposite suggesting that those who did not vote for the President were prejudicing the interests of the United States? Mr Peacock —No one mentioned traitors. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —You are attacking the minority because it is easier. Mr SPEAKER —I think I should offer a general warning that I will not just keep asking honourable members to cease interjecting. The level of interjection is getting quite ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it is in accord with some of the letters I receive from listeners who say Question Time should be cut out of the broadcasts. Mr HAWKE —The logic of the position of the Leader of the Opposition and honourable members opposite means that approximately half of the representatives in the Congress of the United States are treacherous and are traitors because they would not accept an argument in regard to the MX missile. I do not accept the proposition that half the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives in the United States Congress are traitors and are treacherous because they, with integrity, have a different view on this issue. I repeat that the nature of the issues we are talking about here are of such profound importance that men and women of good will, with total integrity, can have a different point of view. The interests of rational discussion and the salvation of men and women and their future on this planet are not served by the simplistic proposition that unless we embrace one doctrine we are traitors and are treacherous to the cause of peace and international understanding. Once we get to that position, we will have guaranteed the end of rational constructive debate. I repeat that, just as in the United States half of the members of the United States Congress are not to be labelled as traitors and treacherous because they will not embrace a particular argument, in this country and in all other democracies those who do not happen to share a particular doctrine do not deserve to be labelled as traitors. They deserve to have their views taken as being advanced by people of integrity. Mr SCOTT —I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the presence in the gallery of two South West African People's Organisation leaders, including Mr Peter Mueshihange, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the problems created by the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa? Further, is he aware of the fact that students from Namibia have extreme difficulty in qualifying for scholarships to Australia, due to lack of secondary education levels of qualifying standard and/or lack of adequate English? Will the Minister address this problem in an effort to ensure increased scholarships for Namibian students to come to Australia? Mr HAYDEN —Australia has followed closely the progress of negotiations towards Namibian independence. We have consistently supported calls for the early independence of Namibia in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435. South Africa has stated, however, that it will not move to implement the United Nations settlement plan until agreement is reached on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Australia, however, regards the withdrawal of Cuban troops as extraneous to the independence settlement as described in terms of UN Security Council Resolution 435. Following the signing, in February 1984, of the Lusaka Accords for monitoring South African troop withdrawals from Angola, one hopes that a more positive climate for negotiating a settlement will develop. Australia remains concerned that Namibian independence and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 have been so long delayed and continue to be held up by the introduction of issues not encompassed in the UN plan. In regard to the other matter that the honourable member raised, it is Australia's policy to seek to help the people of Namibia as a whole. Accordingly, Australia has contributed to a number of aid programs for Namibians in recent years. In 1985 Australia is contributing to a number of United Nations funds for southern Africa. It has also contributed to the establishment, under Commonwealth auspices, of a distance education program for southern African refugees. Additional aid is provided through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Since 1978 Namibians have enrolled in tertiary courses in Australia under the special Commonwealth African assistance plan. At present there are five Namibians studying in Australia. Namibians are welcome to apply for scholarships under various schemes, provided they are suitably qualified and are endorsed by the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. I also mention that a Namibian participated in the Foreign Service training course in Australia in 1984. Mr SHARP —I ask the Prime Minister: Is Australian research co-operation with the United States continuing on the development of electromagnetic guns, which the Foreign Minister has described as a 'godsend' for Australia's defences? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that Australia will continue to co-operate with the United States in this endeavour, which is of importance both to Australia and to the United States, despite the criticisms of members of the Australian Labor Party's factions? Mr HAWKE —No decision has been taken on the future of defence science research on the question of electromagnetic propulsion. However, all Australian research has been directed to the application of electromagnetic propulsion in the atmosphere and not in space, because the Australian interest, as I think all honourable members should appreciate, is in the tactical application of electromagnetic propulsion in regard to, for example, defence against anti-ship missiles. In any case, work on electromagnetic propulsion in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has not had high priority in the past, as is evidenced by the relatively limited amount of money which has been directed to this project, and is being phased down progressively in favour of projects of more immediate defence interest. It should be understood that in this sense Australia has not been engaged in something secretive. I remind honourable members that our Materials Research Laboratories' work on this area has been publicised quite openly. For example, there were the booklets of March 1981 and June 1982. In June of last year there were invitations to media representatives to visit the Materials Research Laboratories so that they could have a full presentation of the work that was being undertaken. I repeat that all Australian research in this area has been directed to the application of electromagnetic propulsion in the atmosphere and not in space. That position is quite clear. If people want to know about the work that is being done, it is open-as has been made clear before-for them to be so informed. Mr LINDSAY —Can the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House of the impact of the Australian Tourist Commission's Hogan advertising campaign in North America? Can the Minister inform the House of the effects of this and other Government initiatives in tourism on the Queensland economy? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am very pleased to be able to answer this question. Some honourable members opposite might learn something about their failure to do something about a very important industry during their seven years in office. The impact of the Hogan campaign in the United States has been absolutely profound. Mr Speaker, if I can give you a few statistics- Mr Shipton —Why don't you make a statement, instead of abusing Question Time? Mr JOHN BROWN —I could make a few statements about the honourable member that would be fairly elucidating. Four hundred thousand calls have been received on the toll line during that advertising campaign. A phone survey indicates that 76 per cent of the callers have a desire to visit Australia in the short term and 45 per cent within two years. I am happy to tell you, Mr Speaker, that this year we will have about 80,000 extra visitors from the United States as a direct result of that particular campaign. Much of that, of course, is reflected in the 40,000 new jobs in the tourist industry. More importantly, Mr Speaker, if I can cite a few figures, in the December quarter the issue of visas in the United States increased by 30.7 per cent in California and 52 per cent in New York. Overall, we will have more than a 50 per cent increase in visitors in the 12-month period. Aeroplane bookings to here for the rest of the year have gone through the roof. Mr Speaker, if you really want to see the impact of that Hogan campaign, I can tell you that today the United States Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus-the American research and legislative support service for the Congress-is making submissions for a tourism budget which is under threat. The evidence that has been given about the sort of campaign that should be run is based on empirical evidence about the Australian Tourist Commission's marketing strategy in the United States. In other words, this poor little country in the South Pacific is showing the Americans how to run a tourism marketing campaign. If we want any proof as to the success of the campaign, that is perhaps the most significant way in which I can provide it. As to the second part of the honourable member's question regarding the economy of Queensland, I hope that all Queenslanders will be happy to listen to this, because Queensland depends on- Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. This has nothing to do with the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order. Mr JOHN BROWN —He was one of the great economic managers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to respond to interjections. He only encourages them further. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am pleased that Queensland members are interested in what I am about to tell them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should continue with his answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —The Queensland economy is in tatters. There is only one thing going for it now that the sugar industry is virtually in a state of collapse and coal prices are down. Tourism is the only thing Queensland has going for it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister resume his seat for a moment. When the House comes to order, Question Time can continue. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am pleased to tell the House of the extraordinary prosperity of the tourism industry in the Queensland economy over the last two years. If I can cast the minds of Opposition members back to two years ago and paint the position as it existed then and perhaps compare that to the present position, they might note the difference. The previous Government had made two or three significant decisions with regard to the tourism industry. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You drew the attention of the Minister for Housing and Construction to the manner, form and the length of his answer and the necessity for him to maintain relevance to the question. I ask whether that applies equally to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party knows the standing order with regard to answers. I will not comment any further than that, but I think that the Minister is in conclusion in any case. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member from Queensland wanted to know the effect of our tourism initiatives on the Queensland economy. I would have thought that some members of the Opposition, particularly those from Queensland, might have been interested. They were part of the reason that the Queensland tourism industry was in tatters. First, they imposed a 20 per cent sales tax on the building of tourist boats. All that did was close down a significant industry in the electorate of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys). I refer to Wright Brothers, Thompsons, Milcraft, Lloyds, which were all shutting. Opposition members from Queensland managed to reduce Wrights work force from 32 to three in six months. When we took off that 20 per cent sales tax, there was a resurgence in that industry in Brisbane. I would have thought that the hundreds of people who are employed there constructively building boats that were then being built in Taiwan would be happy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to assist the Chair by winding up his answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —If the information defeats Opposition members, I am sad. If there is one industry that the present Government has managed to revive in our term of Government, it is tourism. Some 40,000 kids in Australia are pretty happy about the news that has emanated from this Government, which unfortunately was not the case when honourable members opposite were in government. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the request received from the American Defence Secretary, Mr Weinberger, regarding the strategic defence initiative. I remind the Prime Minister of his Press conference in Washington on 19 February this year when, among other things, he boasted about the stridency of his opposition to the strategic defence initiative. Was he asked during that Press conference whether Australia had been asked to support the SDI? Did he reply in the following terms: 'No, they have not asked, and I am not anticipating a request'? Is he therefore now surprised to receive the request, or is it possible that the private position of the Prime Minister in discussions with the Administration was less strident than his boastful public position? Mr Keating —That is a devastating question. Mr HAWKE —Yes, I am devastated by the question. There was no boasting or stridency in the position I put at the Press conference in Washington. Mr Peacock —Well, Max Gillies must have been there. Max makes a more credible Prime Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and I would have thought his colleagues would want to hear the answer. Mr HAWKE —There was no difference between what was said privately and what was said publicly. There was consistency in the position we put to the United States Government on these issues. As I said in answer to a previous question, the way in which our position was put to the United States Government was received by it as being put with integrity. This was not surprising because, after all, it is a position which is shared by many people in the United States, including many people in the President's own Party. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Commission's report No. 10 into the inquiry into the human rights of Australian-born children, a report on the complaint of Mr and Mrs R. D. Au-Yeung. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Commission's report No. 11 into the examination of the human rights of the terminally ill-the right of terminally ill patients to have access to heroin for pain-killing purposes. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That this House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Commission's report No. 9 into the examination of the Queensland Community Service (Aborigines) Act 1984. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Family Law Council on the administration of Family Law in Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9C of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present agreements under the Act between the Commonwealth of Australia and Port Lincoln Tuna Processors Pty Ltd, dated 19 October 1984; Australian Southern Bluefin Exporters, dated 19 October 1984; Australian Tuna Fisheries Pty Ltd, dated 25 October 1984; D. Lukin and Sons, dated 29 October 1984; subsidiary agreements between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing, dated 30 October 1984; and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning squid jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea dated 11 October 1984. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KERIN —For the information of Opposition members, squid jigging is a fisheries term. It is the way they catch squid. They jig them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I thank the Minister for Primary Industry for his erudite observation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971, I present the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 18 (1) of the Wheat Research Act 1957, I present the Wheat Research Annual Report for 1983-84. The report was made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969, I present the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee Annual Report for 1983-84. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry on short term prospects. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs entitled 'Reducing the Risk-Unemployed Migrant Youth and Labour Market Program', together with a appendices and an overview to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to clause 13 of the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present the report on the financial results of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia airline passenger air services on trunk routes and the total operation of passenger air services carried on by the Commission and the company for the year ended 30 June 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to sub-clause 13 (3) of the schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981, I present a joint report of Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia on (1) consultations on passenger revenue load factors and aircraft utilisation held during 1984 and (2) air fares consultations held during 1984. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975, I present the Australian National Gallery annual report for 1983-84. I should like to raise a view, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Joint Publications Committee is responsible for rulings which prohibit the printing of reports in colour. A number of reports, particularly one such as the Gallery's, have magnificent paintings which cannot be reproduced. The whole value of reports such as this, in my view, is lost. Mr SPEAKER —I take the matter on board. There are, of course, difficulties in printing and there are matters of cost. If the Minister's Department were able to assist us to print them, we would be very appreciative. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Shipton. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 persons 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 assistance. 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 shall ever humbly pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Cross and Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest and Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance, and reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned 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 the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions, all relative legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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 certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Barker respectfully showeth. That we the undersigned Petition the Minister and Telecom to update the telephone exchange known as Biscuit Flat . . . that the telephone services be replaced and brought up to a trouble-free modern standard. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed by the undersigned subscribers to the Biscuit Flat telephone exchange in our Petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of facilities for the Australian Frigate Project, Williamstown Dockyard, Melbourne-Phase B. The proposed work is for the provision of further shipbuilding facilities at Williamstown dockyard necessary for the construction of two vessels under the Australian frigate project, and to improve the general efficiency of the dockyard. The work comprises Phase B of the shipbuilding facilities project, and was foreshadowed in the presentation of Phase A of the project to the Committee in February 1984. Phase A was approved by Parliament on 5 April 1984. The shipbuilding facilities project as a whole constitutes the third stage of development of the dockyard for its current role, and supplements facilities provided over the last nine years as part of stages 1 and 2 of the dockyard modernisation project. The work proposed under this submission comprises support service centre; occupational health centre; guided missile launcher system assembly building; upgrading of existing workshops and canteen; shipbuilding platens II; mobile plant facility; administration building annexe; car parking; shallow pits in Alfred graving dock; security measures; and site works and engineering services. The proposed work was previously referred to the Committee in September 1984 but the Committee was unable to undertake any inquiries and table a report before the dissolution of the House in October. The reference therefore lapsed. Now that the new Committee has been formed the Government desires that the proposal be again referred for consideration and report. The estimated cost of the proposal when previously referred to the Committee was $13m at September 1984 prices. The current cost at January 1985 prices is $13.25m. The cost variation is due to general price increases in the building industry since the earlier reference. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(2.58) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction and on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). When this matter last came before the Parliament, on 5 April last year, the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), as the Minister in charge of the motion, said, as reported in Hansard of 5 April 1984, page 1472: The proposal is for the construction of facilities essential-- I emphasise the word 'essential'- for the construction of FFG-type frigates, and covers those initial works necessary for the efficient construction of the frigates. The project is urgent, as the Minister has pointed out. It has been before the old Public Works Committee; it is now going back to the new Public Works Committee. The Opposition, which makes no apology at all for indicating in this Parliament and outside our strongest support for the defence of this nation, supports the motion. I urge the Minister and the Committee to ensure that, if possible, a recommendation comes back to the House before we rise for the winter recess. That would enable an expediency motion to be introduced by the Minister and for funds to be appropriated in the 1985-86 Federal Budget. I appeal to the Minister. I am pleased to note that he is nodding in agreement. I assure him that he will have every support from this side of the House because this is a critical facility for the defence of this country. We on this side of the House place the defence of our nation as our number one priority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious implications for Australia's international standing and national security of the Government's refusal to participate in research for the Strategic Defence Initiative. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.00) —Yesterday at Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) told the House, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock): I have not received any such invitation or communication from Mr Weinberger. We remember the response was to a question broached by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the strategic defence initiative and commenting on newspaper reports yesterday about a possible approach to Australia. Our concern today is a mixture of, first, the Prime Minister telling us one thing in the House and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) saying another thing outside the House. We have obviously a situation where the Prime Minister's position is apparently one which he is not prepared to expose in public. Indeed it is in that that we have our second concern, for we believe that the Prime Minister told one thing to the Americans in the United States of America and both here in the House and in public places he is refusing to acknowledge that he gave the Americans every reason to believe that there could be a positive response on this matter. The third concern is that we see the exercise by this Labor Government as demonstrating more and more that the left wing, the socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party, the factional divisions which are becoming more and more paramount, is at a stage where in foreign policy, when the Left calls the tune, the Labor Party acts out that same story of following the rats down the hole that we saw so long ago in the Pied Piper of Hamelin. We need to remember that the Prime Minister might be a hawke abroad but he is certainly a chicken at home. Let us look first of all at his answer in the House today. He told us that he was quite prepared to consider an invitation that has been received from Mr Weinberger, the Secretary of Defence of the United States, about participating in research towards the strategic defence initiative. Let us get our ground rules first. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has said on a number of occasions. The United States Administration has . . . made it clear that at this stage it is only engaged in research, and will not proceed with the idea of seeking to replace assured destruction by assured defence if this would jeopardise its own security or that of its allies. As a result of the Prime Minister's answer in the House today we all know an approach was made inviting Australia, along with all the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to participate in defence towards the strategic defence initiative. We know equally that those countries within NATO have already given their general approval. Certainly there are some variations from country to country, but they have given overall a general acceptance to the United States that they will participate in research towards developing the strategic defence initiative. We know there has been an approach to Australia. We know that in Luxembourg the Secretary for Defence made a public statement and various defence Ministers of the NATO nations have responded all echoing general support for the SDI. We also know that there has been a very significant reaction by the Soviet Union to the SDI by being prepared to go to Geneva and to participate in disarmament talks. So we have a situation where we have a conflict within the Government because the Prime Minister is not prepared to do the right thing or to be honest with himself, and we have a conflict because the minute the Prime Minister comes into the House and denies there has been an approach, the Defence Minister outside the House says: 'It does not matter if there is going to be an approach. We will reject it'. We cannot blame the Defence Minister because that is where the real quandary for the Labor Party and Australia lies. My colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), reminded us all of this matter in that question he asked the Prime Minister a little while ago. When the Prime Minister was in the United States only a month ago, honourable members will remember, he responded to a question about the attitude of Australia towards the SDI and he gave a very firm denial of Australia's support for it. He said: . . . I made it clear both in my discussions with the President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense that we could not support the SDI initiative. Even there we had a conflict with the communique that came out with Mr Shultz. Honourable members will remember that conflicting second paragraph that the Foreign Minister was asked to deny as soon as it become public. On 6 February 1985 George Shultz said: During our discussions, we reaffirmed that nuclear deterrence is basic to the maintenance of strategic stability between the super-powers, and the stability is essential both for the preservation of peace and to provide the basis for effective arms reduction measures. I know the Government will say: 'But that referred to MX missiles'. We know those discussions also embraced the SDI. In that joint communique there was every indication that the Prime Minister had shown that he was generally prepared to endorse initiatives taken by the United States towards developing a non-nuclear defence initiative, which is what the SDI is all about. Indeed the Prime Minister continued in that joint communique to say: We, as a government, and the people of Australia have played a part in the maintenance of systems in the past which have been necessary to ensure a world which is not threatened with a nuclear holocaust. We have willingly played out part in those processes. We will continue to do so. Yet we had that conflicting statement when he went public. Remember, he said he would not have anything to do with it. We have to remember that Secretary Weinberger, in his statement yesterday, when asked whether an approach had been made to New Zealand said: 'No, we have lost the address.' Why do honourable members think he had lost the address. He had lost it because he knew of the response of the New Zealand Government. Make no bones about it, when George Shultz spoke to Bob Hawke and when Ron and Bob sat down at that table together, if they ever did, we can be sure that what Hawke said to him was: 'Yes, we are very sympathetic with what you are doing. We are your good allies. If you make an approach to us we will respond'. That is why that approach was made by Secretary Weinberger to the Australian Government, and that is why today, in total conflict with that response in the United States, quite contrary to the denial yesterday of the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister has said: 'Yes, we will consider the proposition'. In looking at the result of this we need to consider first of all that there is a total contradiction between what is quite apparently the Prime Minister's private position and his public position. The Defence Minister is following the well-known, publicly expressed attitude that the Prime Minister gave in public in the United States and presumably has given in private to the Labor Caucus. But what has happened today, and what happened in the Secretary of Defense's sending a letter to the Australian Government, is that we now have the true picture of what has been undertaken by the Prime Minister in private. He is saying: 'Of course we are good allies. Of course we are quite prepared to continue to play our part in the maintenance of systems which make a contribution towards preventing a nuclear holocaust'. But the Prime Minister in public and in private is two different people. It is not good enough for him to believe one thing and to do another. We need to remember that this is not the first occasion this has happened. Remember the sad record of Labor in the general defence field. Remember the HMS Invincible exercise, the fact that we had first of all-- Mr Beazley —Ha, ha! Mr SINCLAIR —Well might you laugh, my friend. What happened with the Invincible exercise? There we had the absolutely unbelievable exercise of the United Kingdom Government making private approaches and the then Minister for Defence saying: 'Of course, we have not had an approach'. The Government had not had an official letter but it had had so many consultations that it spent thousands of dollars preparing the Captain Cook dock so the Invincible could be dry-docked. It entered into an arrangement privately and when it came to the pressure the left wing got the Government by the scruff of the neck and said: 'No, you can't do that'. Mind you the unions said later: 'Even if you had said yes we would not have been prepared to work'. But the Invincible episode showed that Labor in foreign policy is not to be trusted. If that were not bad enough, we had all the very justifiable concern-we even had expressions of regret by the Prime Minister-about the present state of play in ANZUS. Look what happened with the MX missiles. Honourable members will remember that he went to Brussels. He was not prepared to wait until he got to Washington. He was not prepared to enter into a proper dialogue with the President in that Ron and Bob show. What he did was to have a Press conference in Brussels. He said: 'We are not prepared any longer to participate in giving the limited assistance you want in facilitating the MX missile testing program in the South Pacific'. Today we have the third chapter in this unsorry exercise. Labor is not to be trusted. Labor is in a state where it is not prepared to play a responsible part in trying to assist the United States in developing a strong position within the disarmament talks. Nor is it prepared even to adopt the position which all the other NATO countries have taken with respect to research into the development of SDI. All the other NATO countries have said yes. What do this Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister do? They say: 'No, we are not prepared to embark on what is a non-nuclear defence research project. We are not prepared to participate'. Mr Peacock —Before they even got the request. Mr SINCLAIR —Before they even got the request. All the circumstances of this third chapter in the Labor Party turning its back on the Americans reflect very sadly on the credibility of the Australian nation. If that were not bad enough, we have had another announcement. This announcement is with respect to the rail gun project. I am not too sure where we are as a result of the Prime Minister's answer today. In fact, he did not say a great deal except that it is a project that has been going on for a very long time and that it really relates to some type of an electro-accelerator project which is going to take place in the atmosphere and, therefore, it will not take place in space. But we need to understand that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have commended the whole of this rail gun accelerator project as being a worthwhile development for Australia's defence. Any number of projects are, of course, undertaken on an experimental basis. Mr Hayden has said that the Government supported the rail gun project because it is going to contribute significantly to deter any sort of an attack from an Exocet missile and that it is a project which will fit in very well with the needs of the Australian defence program. Mr Hawke, similarly during the election campaign, said the rail gun project- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Would the right honourable member address the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs by their correct titles. Mr SINCLAIR —The comments made during the election campaign show that the Government was quite prepared to accept this rail gun project. Yet yesterday we had the comments by the Minister for Defence which show that there, too, there will be a termination of this program. The Defence Minister yesterday, through a spokesman, said that Australia's involvement with the rapid fire electro-magnetic rail gun would end before another phase of the research begins in 1987. If that were because the project had not succeeded or because in some way it was against Australia's defence interest, we could understand that. But we need to understand that what is happening is that more and more Labor is showing itself to be host to the Left in any matters that affect the defence of this country. Indeed, one of the sad indictments of Labor is that when it comes to making public utterances on defence we know that the only people we can listen to are those from the Left. Indeed, if we are looking at disarmament the same applies. It is quite important that the people of Australia understand that as we come to Palm Sunday, when throughout Australia I understand that there are to be marches generally in support of peace, those on this side of the House believe that peace can be achieved in a number of ways. It can be achieved by working responsibly with other nations of like mind towards achieving reductions in nuclear arms. The Government can achieve disarmament best by helping the Americans towards a position of strength at the conference table in Geneva. When the Soviets come to those talks-it was they who walked out of the strategic arms limitation talks; let no one be mistaken-we can help the Americans best by playing a responsible part with them in order to show that we are working, within a world embrace, towards containing any type of nuclear threat to the world. Thirdly, Australia can contribute by participating in research programs towards that end. For that reason we support the participation, in the same way as the other NATO nations, in research towards the SDI concept. It is certain that were we in government we would be very sympathetically considering this approach from Mr Weinberger. We would not be prematurely dismissing the whole offer, as the Defence Minister has. Indeed, sadly, in looking at the whole matter of disarmament, the Hawke Government's disarmament policy owes much less to John Curtin than it does to Wilfred Burchett. I think it is a sad indictment of Labor that it has forsaken principle for expediency. The Labor Party has forsaken disarmament and a responsible role in minimising the risk of nuclear holocaust for the sake of momentary glory and the satisfaction of those few in the Left who currently hold the Government by the throat. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.15) —I want to get rid of a couple of the furphies raised by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) first before getting on to some of the substance of the issue. I must admit that I do not have much to deal with on the substance of the issue because the right honourable member did not get to the substance of the issue. I think that is a disappointment because I really would like to hear, outside the political context in which these issues are being raised, some view on the part of those on the other side of the House as to why they wish to eschew deterrence, a strategy which they adopted for most of their period in government-a strategy which we accepted-and which has a very detailed and very well thought out background. We did not hear that from the Leader of the National Party. A little later I might get on to the reasons why we did not hear that from him, if I have time. I pick up one or two points that he made. He made a point about the rail gun and attempted to link it to the strategic defence initiative issue. Decisions as to whether rail gun research would proceed beyond 1987 have absolutely nothing to do with these issues relating to the strategic defence initiative because our project has absolutely nothing to do with the strategic defence initiative. As we have made quite clear repeatedly around this country, our association with rail gun research is totally unrelated to the question of any application of that project to the strategic defence initiative. It is another issue entirely. Our judgments about our participation in this program will be based on judgments made at the time the program was pursued by the Opposition in government and since it has been pursued by us in government. The Opposition when in government did not proceed with the rail gun proposition because it was in some ways related to the strategic defence initiative. It pursued the research as an anti-anti-shipping missile project and as an anti-tank project. We view it in precisely the same terms as the Opposition viewed it then. Our decision as to whether the project will continue after 1987 will be based on whether we feel that some useful progress can be made in that area for our defence forces or whether other systems have supplanted it and been developed. One of those other systems which has recently come into operation, the phalanx system, certainly does take care of one of the areas of concern to which our research has so far been devoted. Those are the only considerations which will apply to our consideration of this issue when, down the track, we are obliged to confront it. So I take that point out first. The second point which was raised and which I think needs an answer is the nonsense that took up the first five minutes of the speech of the Leader of the National Party. That was the nonsense on the question of whether some private position was adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Washington and some public position adopted in Washington and subsequently in Australia. All I can say to the right honourable gentleman is that he was not at those meetings. I, of course, have seen the records of those meetings. As would be expected, both the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and I have seen those reports. All I can say is that there is absolutely no difference between the positions adopted by the Prime Minister privately and the positions he has adopted publicly. So I can assure the House that the five or 10 minutes of the right honourable member's speech which he spent on that subject were five or 10 minutes totally wasted. The third point he got on to was the reasons for the Soviet Union coming back into arms control discussions. The Prime Minister indicated today that they are many and varied. The matter he raised about the possibility of Soviet concerns over SDI was one of them. There are a number of other factors as well. There was the fact that those missiles mentioned had been deployed in Europe. There was the matter also of the changing attitudes of the Soviet Government. There has been no secret in the various analyses of the Soviet Government over the last few years that it has had a very great deal of difficulty determining a line on these matters and very little progress has been able to be made until recently. A number of factors are involved in the Soviets coming back to discussions, as the Prime Minister indicated. I really think the Leader of the National Party need not have chosen simply to dwell on that particular point. I believe that the reason why the Leader of the National Party did not choose to dwell in any detail on what the policies of his coalition partners have to do with the actual issues of SDI itself that members of the coalition are not in a position to do that with any sort of consistency and in any sort of detail because they themselves are quite dramatically divided on this issue. It is not to the discredit of members of the Opposition that they should be divided on this issue. I think it entirely appropriate, certainly if some of them are going to argue the course that has been argued at least in one liners by the Leader of the National Party. Others may well have a critical view of that position and may well wish to put that view in party circles. I certainly think that would be a very sensible thing for a substantial number of members of the Liberal Party and the National Party to do. Some time ago there was a very interesting report by Paul Kelly in the Australian headed 'Libs battle royal over Star Wars'. We find in that report that, at least in the Liberal Party, there is no capacity at all for coalition members to get their act together on this issue. There is an open brawl, a brawl of at least sufficiently significant dimensions to find its way into the media, between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Opposition spokesman on foreign policy. Mr Kelly found it incumbent upon him to comment that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) had found himself presiding over this issue in much the same way as he presided over his foreign affairs spokesman's brawl when he was wearing another hat. It is becoming a major problem for the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. It appears that wherever he shifts, he shifts himself into a position in which his conscience is troubled. It is very much to his credit that it is always troubled. He has one of the most well-developed consciences in this House, and far be it from me or anyone else to belittle it. Nevertheless, it is a conscience that has to be accommodated. Hence, we do not find any Liberal spokesmen on their hind legs debating this issue. We have the great synthesiser, the Leader of the National Party, doing the job for them. They themselves cannot reach a position on this matter. As I said, it is fair enough that they should not be able to reach a position on this. Of course, any debate in the Party that involves the predilections of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition poses a particularly delicate problem for the Leader of the Opposition because, invariably, where he finds himself in confrontation with his Deputy, he finds himself also obliged to abandon positions which he has himself held in the past. I remember that when he was Foreign Minister, he spoke very firmly about arms control and disarmament issues from time to time. We would not discern a great deal of progress in a number of areas; nevertheless, he spoke very firmly about those issues. Some of those arms control initiatives, those positions adopted by the then Australian Government on things like the treaty affecting weapons systems in outer space, would, at least to some degree, be under threat were this program to develop any further. So the Leader of the Opposition is a troubled person when he views the stridency of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the difficulties of conscience of the foreign affairs spokesman, who I see will probably make a personal explanation at the end of this debate. If honourable members opposite find themselves with any problem, they are in very good company. There is no doubt at all that this subject has been of considerable concern to conservative politicians elsewhere. No matter what might have been said briefly yesterday at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, a number of comments on public record bear repeating here. The doubts expressed by some conservative politicians are shared by us, so I feel that I have every right to repeat them in some detail. Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Secretary, in a recent speech, asked the same very significant questions about the strategic defence initiative. He did not give a one line response to the issue or evade the central issues; he asked: Will research lead to a plausible defence system? If it leads to partial defence of military targets, will that mean a return to the targeting of civilian populations? Will defences be survivable and cost effective, or will they unleash a dual arms race in defensive as well as offensive systems? What will be the opportunity costs of high-tech defensive systems, and what will be the impact of other elements of the West's defence spending? Will the very short reaction times required for space-based anti-missile systems be compatible with political control? Where will the SDI program fit in with arms control? Those were very relevant questions, and none of them were addressed by the Leader of the National Party when he considered these matters. All of those questions involve issues which parties like mine and those of honourable members opposite, which have been committed for a considerable time to a strategy of deterrence, should address before we come perambulating into this place bouncing up and down like so many mountain goats, bouncing around on this issue as though no complexities are involved, following the normal 'Yahoo, wrap ourselves in the flag' politics, which honourable members opposite inevitably do in Question Time when they seek to address questions to the Prime Minister. Not only have both this Government and the previous Government pursued those strategies of deterrence and policies which oppose threats to our position on deterrence; let me remind honourable members opposite of criticisms they have offered about the Soviet Union over the years when they have expressed concerns about particular developments of Soviet missile systems. They have expressed those concerns in the context of their threat to a strategy of deterrence, if they were to provide the Soviet Union with what is called the window of opportunity to take advantage of a first strike opportunity against the United States of America. Without necessarily agreeing with their analysis, I agree with their watchfulness. I agree that they ought to have viewed those matters very seriously in the context of a threat to stable deterrence. As my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed on a television program recently, in a view on deterrence with which I agree, deterrence has been a substantial contributor to the fact that we are all alive and are operating in an environment which at least offers us some degree of security. As a nation, we have gone further than that. We are developing a system of co-operation with the United States which, via our joint facilities over the years, is associated, at least in one instance, with a posture of deterrence and, in other instances, with ensuring the system's stability by arms control verification and early warning. That whole posture has been set up with the joint installations in this country on the basis that they contribute to stable deterrence in the international system. That is the reason for those facilities being established. As I said, the situation of the Opposition is similar to that of so many mountain goats bounding down the green desks to the table. Members of the Opposition are prepared to attempt to challenge us intellectually on this position without putting down the consequences of the positions that they themselves are adopting. Their position is absolutely disgraceful. I have at least, in my 10 minutes, addressed some of the central issues. All we got from the Leader of the National Party was argie-bargie about the Labor Party being soft or bad on defence. He is the man who walked in here with the only real reduction in defence expenditure associated with any Defence Minister over the last eight years. He is the man who tried to defend a record which allowed the percentage of our Budget devoted to the purchase of defence equipment to fall some 8 per cent, the lowest level to which it has fallen for a considerable period. He was as a Defence Minister totally worthless, and as a defence spokesman he is totally worthless. Now he is presenting some sort of position on where he thinks his Party is going on the question of the strategic defence initiative. He has considered none of the central issues involved. He has not considered his own record and the very relevant criticisms made of his record on defence. He abandons all that, as though it is all trivial and irrelevant and we no longer need to think about it, while he presides over attempts by the Liberals to sort themselves out on this issue. The Leader of the National Party will not get away with it in this country. He is not getting away with it now after his wet performance at Question Time. If that wet sort of performance is kept up at least we can be certain that there will be no confusion of the Australian public on this issue because the answers to his positions are quite clear cut. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation. He may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) claimed that I was at variance with my colleagues in respect of the subject matter of the debate just concluded. I assure the House that I am not. I was misrepresented by that remark. We are at one on this side of the House about the importance of having research into the strategic defence initiative. If Australia is to have influence with the United States or anyone else regarding the outcome of that research it is exceptionally important that we be united. We are united with our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies in responding positively and constructively on the question of research. Debate resumed. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(3.32) —Before the commencement of Question Time I was speaking on what I believe to be the clear double standards of the Opposition parties when it comes to the important economic question of the extent or otherwise of regulation of the economy and the question of whether or not there ought to be substantial cutbacks of government expenditure. I believe I was clearly demonstrating the discredited ideology of those in the conservative parties who seek to promote market forces as if they had some economic god-like existence as the solution to Australia's economic problems. I return to the central thrust of my condemnation of that discredited school of thought which advocates a reduced public sector. I believe it is important to examine Australian Government outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product and compare it with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. While there is no perfect measurement of the comparative size of the public sectors of various countries, I believe the measurement of government expenditure, when coupled with other statistics to which I have referred, must provide the most reliable guide to the comparative size of the public sectors of the countries surveyed. In 1981, the last year for which figures are available, outlays of government in Australia were a smaller share of gross domestic product than in any OECD country other than Spain. I want to make this perfectly clear because more money was spent by governments on the welfare, well-being and quality of life of the citizens of the following countries as compared to Australia-the United States of America, Japan, West Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. When we hear the statements from the Opposition that bemoan what it says is the outrageous size of the public sector in Australia, let it produce the facts. Let it give the Australian people any information on which they can base a comparison and judge the veracity or otherwise of the claims made by Opposition members. They will not do it because the facts are not on their side. As I have indicated today, quite clearly Australia has a very low level of government expenditure, public sector expenditure, when compared with those countries. Despite this, the free marketeers, or the dries or the economic rationalists-call them what you will-call for further restrictions on the size of the public sector and the level of government expenditure. This economic debate is championed by some of the new arrivals in the Parliament, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) being one of them, and he is supported, would you believe, by some of the members of the National Party. I will deal with them in due course. What they all fail to tell the Australian people is that a reduced public sector in Australia would not only put us further behind the rest of the world, but also would amount to a direct attack on the quality of life of every Australian citizen. What they do not tell us is that a reduced government expenditure means a poorer standard of hospitals, private and public schools, roads, and levels of pensions and benefits. What reduced government expenditure means is less expenditure on defence and on support of primary producers. In my own State of New South Wales, where additional government assistance for handicapped persons, both intellectual and physical, is being advocated, it means that in those crucial areas of human need the Australian Government would be cutting back on its responsibilities. This is not just some remote esoteric academic debate. The question of public expenditure and the level of it is crucial to the quality of life of Australians. It is crucial to reform and to social justice in this country. I believe that the Parliament as a whole ought to deal with integrity with the question of the overall level of government expenditure and the size of the public sector. That means to put aside the slogans, the cheap ploys that the conservatives use, and get down to a critical examination of what size public sector Australia ought to have and in what directions that public sector ought to evolve. I now turn to another doctrinaire hobby-horse of the free marketeers predominantly found in the Liberal and National parties. This view asserts that there is an excessive level of government regulation of the economy and argues that society would be more affluent and people in Australia would enjoy a higher standard of living if there were less government regulation. I believe this view focuses on laws which play an essential part in the quality of life of Australians. Those who promote deregulation with an uncritical attitude and approach attack such things as consumer protection laws or the arbitration system. If honourable members want proof of what I am saying, look at the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). What he seeks to do is attack the arbitration system, which of course imposes basic obligations on employers to pay minimum wage levels in specific industries. Those discredited economic forces in the conservative parties also attack controls over interest rates. They want to open it up to the market place, they say. What they do not say is that if they did that and there was deregulation of interest rate controls, home owners across Australia would be at the mercy of the banks and insurance companies and escalating levels of home loan repayments. If the so-called economic rationalists in the conservative parties had their way, these high interest rates would nail to the wall hundreds of thousands of Australian families. I can assure honourable members that as long as I am the member for Hughes, there is no way that I will ever support the erosion of the standard of living of my constituents and of families in the electorate of Hughes, as the conservative parties would have it eroded. I now wish to examine not just the logic but the consistency of the Opposition parties and their credibility in advancing these arguments. I might just give an obvious example of the absurdity of this attitude that suggests that we should rush to deregulate society. It was put to me today that the logical consistent conclusion would be: Why should we have such restrictions and regulations as a licensing system for motorists? Why not deregulate-as the hobby-horse is trotted out-driving licences and leave it to the market place to work out who ought to survive in the marketplace as a driver? I suggest that the absurdity of promoting deregulation without critically examining each particular regulation that judges its effectiveness is an absurd and trite point of view to put forward in this Parliament. I want to examine the consistency and credibility of the Opposition parties when it comes to deregulation. One would have thought that after approximately four decades of Government in recent history we would now have a nation substantially free of government intervention. We all know that probably the biggest barrow that is pushed in the Parliament is that pushed by the National Party of Australia in respect of the question of the regulation or otherwise of primary producers. If the rhetoric is of substance, as we would have it believed, and if we looked at the primary sector we would see free market forces operating par excellence; we would see a relative absence of government involvement. Let me just briefly tell the House what some four decades of Liberal-National Party free-market forces have done with respect to the regulation of the primary sector. There is not one single aspect of primary production of which I am aware that is not the subject of the most detailed regulation, some levy, some marketing board, some substantial subsidy or the greatest degree of government involvement and control in any part of the Australian economy. Still, the phoneys on the other side, those on the Opposition benches, would have us believe that we ought to embrace deregulation. Goodness gracious me! Let us have a look at the record of the Opposition parties. Let us start with apples and pears because, of course, these products are subject to extensive government regulation which they have supported. In 1979 those great free marketeers, Malcolm Fraser and Doug Anthony, with very well-known hatred for government regulation, set up a body to look after Australian canned fruits. The Australian Canned Fruits Corporation administers a marketing scheme to market canned apricots, peaches and pears and mixtures of those fruits. Bodies have also been set up to look after the dairy, dried fruit, eggs, honey, meat and livestock, tobacco, wheat and wine industries and so on. There has been board after board, inquiry after inquiry and subsidy after subsidy. It is appalling that the Opposition parties have the gall to talk in this House about deregulation. Such talk is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. A common thread runs through the establishment of the various corporations and boards which regulate and control Australian primary production. That common feature is the realisation by successive governments, including the agrarian socialists from the National Party, that on many occasions it is in the public interest for society and the economy to be regulated and that to allow for forces of the international market-place to operate against primary producers or any other part of Australian society would guarantee the ruination of Australian producers. The fact is that those boards and institutions were established for the specific reason that market forces had failed to provide a fair and just standard of living for Australian producers and, thus, to ensure the best return for the Australian economy. I have raised these issues to highlight the double standards and the economic and political bankruptcy of those on the Opposition benches who trumpet the phoney call for reduced government expenditure and deregulation of industry and the Australian economy in general. We ought to be having an honest debate in this House about how to achieve a more efficient and accountable public sector; an honest debate about what is the most appropriate form of regulation at any particular time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.44) —'The Government remains deeply committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament'. I would suggest that those are probably the most important words which appear in the Governor-General's address to the Parliament this year. The Opposition totally agrees with the aspirations announced in that statement. Unfortunately, we do not necessarily agree with the methodology which the Government has sought to try to achieve those worthwhile aims. All authorities and scientists across the world agree that there cannot be a limited and regional nuclear exchange, that such an exchange must escalate to a global war and that the resulting protracted nuclear winter would be total in its destruction of mankind and all life on earth. The risk of nuclear war is, therefore, one of extreme gravity. It is any wonder that next Sunday-Palm Sunday, 31 March-many thousands of Australians will participate in marches and public meetings to express their desire and hope for peace. Unfortunately, the efforts of individuals and mere talk by politicians are not enough unless they are supported by effective government policy, at national as well as international levels, and through initiatives which can be seen to work. One of the imperatives of successful diplomatic negotiation between the Soviet Union and the United States of America must obviously be mutual respect for the strength of the other. No negotiation between a strong nation and a weak nation has ever resulted in peace. Does any member of this Government seriously suggest that a strong Soviet Union and a weak United States could negotiate a lasting peace which would affect the future of all mankind? Certainly, no peace with honour can be achieved on such a basis. It is for this reason that Australia must continue to give its firm commitment to the Western alliance and the maintenance of our ANZUS Treaty obligations. It is a matter of the gravest concern to the Opposition that the Hawke Government, despite all of its rhetoric, has over the last two years done little more than use disarmament as a propaganda ploy to appease its left wing which represents essentially anti-American elements of the Australian Labor Party. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent anti-Russian element to ensure some prospect of a more balanced and credible disarmament policy. Labor has failed the Australian people and the wider cause of world peace and multilateral disarmament. It has done so consistently over the period it has been in office. Labor refused to act to support ANZUS, the continuation of that vital treaty for Australia's long term defence support. The trilateral alliance required that the Labor Government negotiate with its fraternal, socialist party government in New Zealand. However, we were told by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that despite Australia's obvious interest and concern about the outcome they chose to stand back and allow the relationship to deteriorate; to allow the alliance to become inoperative. How could this Government seriously say to the Australian people: 'We have your interests at heart. Trust us. Do not worry about ANZUS. Do not worry about the American alliance. Do not worry about our brothers across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand. Just trust us and all will be well'. I recall what happened in Britain in 1939 at the time of Chamberlain's infamous visit to Berlin. Chamberlain came back to Britain with a piece of paper and said more or less the same thing. We saw what came from that. The Government's refusal to act in relation to ANZUS was only the first of a series of incidents which have taken place. It is no longer possible to say that the Prime Minister just fell into a period of isolated bad luck. The trend over recent months is such that any person with reasonable intelligence would appreciate that what we are seeing is a continuation of a well-laid-out policy. It is a policy which is directed at weakening the capacity of Australia to maintain its position in international fora and our capacity to depend upon, or to be depended upon by, our allies. Let us see the MX crisis for what it was. The United States wanted to test fire missiles in the South West Pacific. It thought that Australia was an ally and as one ally to another it simply said: 'Would you permit our aircraft which will be observing those tests to refuel in Australia?' After much coming and going and much factional activity by the Australian Labor Party and scrambling for position we heard a muted Prime Ministerial voice as from a tiny little mouse scurrying across a page of Australia's diplomatic history, and saying to our great ally: 'No, do not send your planes here. We do not want your presence to help us. We are so strong. We are so mighty in the South West Pacific that whatever the Russians or anybody else may do does not worry us. We can depend on ourselves under all circumstances'. Honourable members can recall, as the Prime Minister did at the dispatch box not so long ago, that in 1942 when Australia's bastions of defence were crumbling in Papua New Guinea it was indeed a Labor Government and a Labor Prime Minister, Curtin, who said without reservation to the United States: 'Come to our aid'. Yet now under changed circumstances and, I must say, a changed Labor Party the situation is so different that we will not even allow the United States to bring its aircraft to Australia for refuelling. What a policy of duplicity! In times of risk and peril we would be the first to ask the Americans to risk their blood and their treasure in our defence. What have we been prepared to do to help them? At the last General Assembly of the United Nations we went even further. We took our extraordinary policy, if I can call it that, into the international fora. We consistently cut across the negotiating stance of the United States, which at that time was arguing not just for a freeze on nuclear weapons but for positive cuts in the number of warheads in the arsenals of Russia as well as those of the United States. Our position weakened the sense of Western unity at a critical time in the lead-up to the bilateral negotiations which are now taking place in Geneva, no thanks to Australia, between the United States and the Soviet Union. To add insult to injury, at the disarmament talks in Geneva last year our Foreign Minister said that unless America was prepared to make positive progress towards disarmament it should withdraw its bases from Australia. I sought in vain to find out what the Minister was saying to the Soviet Union, and I found nothing. Over the past months the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Labour Party, and the Prime Minister have tried to do little more than blackmail the United States on this issue. They have said that if the United States proceeds towards developing a first strike capability and if it does not proceed to disarmament talks at a pace which meets the requirements not of world governments-oh, no, that would be asking far too much-but of Australia's Government they will say to our greatest ally: 'Take away your bases. Take away your nuclear umbrella and we can exist fancy free without your support'. Let us now look at the comprehensive test ban treaty. We all support this objective but the Hawke Government for factional reasons has been so strident in its criticisms of the United States position that ultimately a protest was made to the Prime Minister about the behaviour of the Foreign Minister at UN General Assembly. Honourable members will recall, as I am sure all Australians will recall, that at the last election in a vain attempt to neutralise the Nuclear Disarmament Party vote, rather than go out with courage, perseverence and tenacity to sell a rational policy of multilateral nuclear disarmament, Labour sought to dress up a routine visit by the Russian and American officials and scientists as being their desire to negotiate with Australia on world disarmament. We are not just a middle-ranking power. All of a sudden under the Hawke Administration we have become the world's greatest power. Although we are not nuclear armed, and I believe we should remain so, we can see the stupidity of the situation when we have a government which is no longer on earth if it seriously believes that we can get the Russians and the Americans to come and negotiate with Australia on these issues when we have no locus standi whatsoever. More recently we have had the strategic defence initiative which Hayden described as a 'highly moral' purpose- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member will refer correctly to the Foreign Minister. Mr CONNOLLY —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Minister described the strategic defence initiative as a highly moral purpose which seeks to replace the doctrine of mutual assured destruction with a doctrine of mutual assured security. At this stage SDI is only a research program, its aim being to see whether deterrence can be achieved by relying on a non-nuclear defence system rather than continuing with the threat of massive nuclear retaliation, which, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, may ultimately result in the destruction of the entire world as we know it. This Labor Government has proven that on matters of peace and war and the ultimate survival of humanity it cannot be trusted to face the real issues with integrity and to determine the right course of action without constantly looking over its shoulder to see whether myopic members of its party can be brought to agree. The issues facing the world today are of such fundamental importance that if the Australian Government is not prepared to see where its interests lie, and thus the interests of the Australian people, it would do well to keep quiet in international fora. We must seek multilateral disarmament. It is a matter of profound regret that there are too many people in this community and elsewhere who seem to believe that peace can be brought to this world by the United States putting up a white flag and that somehow or other reason will prevail. Any student of history who examines the events leading from the peace treaties after the Great War through to the failure of the League of Nations and to the extraordinary attempts made at the time of the Washington naval treaty when nations of good will seriously entered into treaties with the intention of achieving international peace and of effective disarmament would know, these efforts failed. They failed for one fundamental reason-those States which sought power were not prepared to enter into effective negotiations or to turn those negotiations into reality. It is for that reason that the Opposition has consistently followed the approach of wanting to see mutual negotiations, leading to scale-down disarmament based on an agreed program between the United States and Soviet Union. Nobody suggests that that will be easy to achieve, but achieve it we must and achieve it we will provided that the Western alliance holds together and the Soviet Union is made to realise that we are not weak, that we mean what we say, that we are prepared to defend our interests and, above all, that we too seek peace and stability in this troubled world of ours. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(3.59) —Once again honourable members have been subjected to yet another nonsense and humbug speech from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I do not intend to waste time in putting the lie to his arguments. I remind all honourable members that on 21 February 1985 His Excellency the Governor-General made a Speech at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of Australia. I wish to refer honourable members to the first paragraph of that Speech. It is a shame that more attention was not paid in the Address-in-Reply debate to the Governor-General's Speech and to the problems confronting the nation and that we had to listen to such humbug speeches from honourable members on the other side of the House. His Excellency the Governor-General stated: The 34th Parliament assembles following general elections on 1 December 1984 in which the people of Australia confirmed their choice of national direction by returning the Government with a substantial majority. I repeat: . . . returning the Government with a substantial majority. Everyone would think, if they followed the Press reports after that election, that the Australian Labor Party had lost that election. The Governor-General's speech referred to the fact that we won, and won handsomely. We intend to continue the great job that was carried out by the Thirty-third Parliament. The people of Australia are not fools. They remembered the horrible days of the Malcolm Fraser Government. They remembered the bankruptcies, the unemployment, the high inflation rates, industrial disputes and the protection of the bottom-of-the-harbour rogues. They remembered those things and returned the Labor Party. They gave this Government a mandate to govern in the way in which it had governed, when doing such a great job previously. Mr Deputy Speaker, having made those few comments, I pass on my congratulations to you upon being elected to your high office. I know that you, in turn, will pass on my congratulations to the Speaker and to Madam Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees on their election to those very high offices. As you know, it is very important that I, as Government Whip, maintain a very good working relationship with the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and yourself. When we have trouble in the House, it is very important for the Whips to try to calm members down. We do have a very big role to play in the job of assisting to control the work of the Parliament. I also congratulate the clerks on the great job that they do. While they have to listen and be bored for many hours of the day, they do a great job. I know that members and Ministers would be somewhat lost if the clerks were not there to do their work which includes the very hard task of listening to the speeches of all members of the Parliament. I also congratulate all members who made their maiden speeches. I recall to them what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) reminded me when I was first elected to this Parliament. He said: 'All you have to do is keep coming back'. That is my advice to them. They have to work hard. The electors send them to this place to work hard and to do a good job for them. If members do that, I am sure that the people in their electorates will return them to the Parliament. My commiserations go to those former members who lost their seats in the last election. I refer to Pete Steedman and Deane Wells. I mention also the former member for the Northern Territory, John Reeves, but I am sure he will be back after the next election. I also thank the electors of Griffith for returning me to this Parliament for my fourth term. Mr Ian Cameron —Misdirected, they are. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, they were not misdirected. They know that they have a good member. I also take this opportunity to thank my family-my wife, daughters and sons-and all the staff in my office and the Australian Labor Party's volunteer workers. It is very comforting when one visits the polling booths to see the genuine hard-working branch members handing out how-to-vote cards. At some of the booths I noticed that the Australian Democrats did not have anyone working on the booths and their how-to-vote cards were left on little boxes. It was very good to see all of those hard working ALP members. The National Party of Australia did not have many workers in my electorate because- Mr Ian Cameron —They were well represented. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, they were not well represented in the city because the people in the city are awake to what the National Party is all about. While we are talking about the election, I wish to spend a little time discussing the voting patterns not only in my electorate of Griffith but throughout Australia. I refer to the publication issues by the Australian Electoral Commission entitled 'Result of Count of First Preference Votes and Distribution of Preferences'. Let us look at the votes cast in Queensland. In my electorate only 89.3 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote there took up the opportunity to cast their vote. Some 7,474 persons did not bother to vote. If we look at the whole of Queensland, 110,000 persons did not take up their opportunity to vote. It is very interesting to study the figures to see how many people who were eligible to vote in that election did not bother to vote. If they are all fined $2, a couple of million dollars will to to the Treasury coffers. The important question to be asked in regard to these figures is: Why do those people not vote? Why do they not take up the opportunity to vote? Perhaps they are sick of all political parties. Perhaps they do not really understand the system. If they really knew how bad the Liberal-National parties were, I am sure they would vote for the Labor Party to ensure that we increased our majority. I do not have a great deal of time in which to speak. I know that some honourable members opposite want the chance to say a few words. This debate will conclude at 4.15 p.m.; so I will cut my remarks short. But I do have a few things on which I wish to remark. I say to honourable members opposite that we should really take note of the delightful blue book entitled 'Record of Government' that has been printed by the Government. It contains the record of achievements of the Hawke Labor Government in the Thirty-third Parliament. I turn quickly to the record of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I think it is very important that we look at the Minister's record. We can see that it is a great record. During his time in office, industrial disputes have been reduced to the lowest level in the history of this nation. Mr Blunt —What have you done about work to regulations, though? Mr HUMPHREYS —Honourable members opposite are not interested in the facts and figures, which always hurt them. But it is very important that we look at those matters. We should look at the history of the industrial relations record of the Government of Queensland. I refer specifically to the present dispute that is taking place in Queensland affecting South East Queensland Electricity Board workers. The legislation that has been introduced by the Queensland Parliament is so draconian that one could really say that fascist legislation is being introduced in the country in this day and age. That legislation provides, in effect, that employers will be able to sue for damages caused by industrial disputes. Individuals can be fined up to $50,000 for secondary boycotts and unions can be fined $250,000. Anyone suspected of harassing electricity workers can be arrested without a warrant. It provides for a fine of up to $500 for harassing or failing to supply details of names and addresses. I often wonder how the Bjelke-Petersen Government defines 'harassing'. If it uses the definition contained in the Oxford Dictionary, one could be fined $500 if one troubles or worries a worker. Mr Goodluck —Wind it up, then. Mr HUMPHREYS —I will wind up in a moment. I want honourable members to understand that this draconian legislation that has been implemented by the Queensland Government is being supported by the Liberals in Queensland. I would like honourable members opposite to say whether they agree with the draconian legislation that has been introduced by the Premier. While talking about elections and redistributions, I understand that there will shortly be a redistribution in Queensland. Mr Chynoweth —Another gerrymander. Mr HUMPHREYS —It will be a great gerrymander. We know what a great job the Electoral Commissioner, Professor Colin Hughes, did in regard to the redistribution for the Australian Parliament. Mr Ian Cameron —One vote, one value. Mr HUMPHREYS —I say to National Party members that it was a very fair and just redistribution. I challenge all Liberal and National Party members here today-and I will be sitting down in a moment-to say that the Premier of Queensland will have a fair and just redistribution. Russell Hinze in Queensland said: 'When you have the numbers, if you don't use them, you're mad. If you don't draw the lines to suit yourself, look out'. We know what will happen in Queensland. Mr Speaker, I am pleased to see that you are in the chair because I might need a bit of protection. I will close on this note: I challenge honourable members opposite to say to me uncategorically that they agree with what the Premier of Queensland is doing in regard to both the industrial legislation and his redistribution. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.10) —In speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate in response to the Governor-General's speech in the Thirty-fourth Parliament of Australia, I wish to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election to the chair. I am proud to represent the people of the very much enlarged electorate of Maranoa. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) talking about electoral redistribution. It is a fact that my electorate has been increased by 112,000 square kilometres. One vote one value so called was introduced by the Labor Party, but instead of having fewer people to represent and being able to do the job properly, one finds one's electorate greatly increased in size. That particularly applies to rural electorates. The National Party stands for a 20 per cent electoral leeway and I think it only fair and proper that that should happen. I welcome into the electorate of Maranoa the new areas of Tambo, Emerald, Blackwater, Springsure, Duaringa, Goombungee and a huge open cut mining area, as well as the beef cattle, grain farming and small business areas in that part of Queensland which have been added. It is also interesting to note, when considering fair redistributions, that the electorate of Maranoa is 10,000 times bigger than the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). That gives some idea of the enormous areas which members who represent country Australia have to cover to give people some sort of representation. Mr O'Neil —It is not as big as Grey. Mr IAN CAMERON —No, I realise that. I also welcome the new members to the House and congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I thank my family and campaign committee for the sterling work they have done to re-elect me to this place as member for Maranoa. We have heard a lot about the ever-increasing amount of government expenditure. I believe that Australia should be having an expenditure summit rather than a tax summit. I have been talking to the parties on this matter, but the socialists on the Government benches look to more and more government expenditure. We Australians are now approximately 45 per cent socialised. It results in a lack of competition and an inability to earn more export income. Therefore, it is difficult to balance our trade or to increase our standard of living. Under Labor Australians are experiencing a decreasing standard of living. I point to the great debacle in the dairy industry. That industry wishes to export, as does the sugar industry. Those industries are capable of earning export income for Australia. However, Labor is not interested in the sugar and dairy industries but wishes those industries to starve. Inevitably taxes will increase. There is no doubt that the tax summit will be a total farce. Taxes will go up; it is just a matter of rearranging them. I am totally opposed to capital gains, wealth tax, death and gift duties. Indirect taxes of that type are regressive and will not stimulate the economy. The supertaxing of petroleum is one of the great problems of economic management. This is being highlighted by the ever-increasing costs of petrol. It is high time the Government did something about these increases. If there is to be a tax summit, let there be some input from people in the bush. The biggest complaint that rural members receive relates to the rapidly increasing price of fuel. I see that the Bob Hope of the bush has just arrived. I do not know what he is telling the farmers of Australia about his Government's cost increases. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the opening of the Labor Party campaign on 3 March 1983 promised the Australian people to reduce fuel prices by 3c a litre. But since then fuel prices have risen by nearly 8c a litre. What does the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) say about that? What excuse does he give for his Prime Minister? What a disgusting performance. Australians are now seeing oil prices being tied to the oil parity pricing policy. I have always been opposed to such a course. I believe that we should have our own price for oil. It is difficult for people who buy their fuel at the bowsers to understand why fuel prices are rising so rapidly. The main reason is that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price that we use to fix our parity pricing is based on United States dollars. The price at present is $US28 a barrel. Because the Labor Government has floated our Australian dollar against the United States dollar, we see its value plunging out of sight. In the last adjustment the price of fuel increased by 10 per cent. Now adjustments are to be made every two months instead of every six months because inflation is going up so rapidly. Mr O'Neil —No, that is not true. Mr IAN CAMERON —The price of the dollar is falling so rapidly that these adjustments have to be made every two months instead of every six months. That is why oil prices are going up. I am requesting this Government, if it intends to have this summit, to look closely at the pricing arrangements for our crude oil. It is having a marked effect on rural Australians. It is all very well for those members in this place who represent city areas as most of their transportation systems are heavily subsidised. The buses here in Canberra alone cost taxpayers in this country $50m a year. The Federal railways cost them $50m to $100m a year. All the transportation systems in Sydney and Melbourne are heavily subsidised. However, there is no subsidisation out in the bush. People have to pay these incredibly increasing prices to go from point A to point B. The oil pricing arrangement is most involved. Unfortunately, the Government has cut short this debate. The Government Whip is not allowing us to finish this debate in proper time. It is a disgusting state of affairs. Honourable members will go to Government House shortly, but I believe that we should have been allowed to finish this debate in a proper manner and speak for the full 20 minutes normally allowed. As there are other members who wish to take part in this debate, particularly on the Opposition benches, I bring my remarks to an end. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(4.18) —I thank my good friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) for allowing me an extra two minutes for my remarks. I also wish to thank the Government Whip. I will continue on the subject of petrol pricing. The honourable member for Maranoa mentioned the bush. It is not only people in the bush who are suffering. People in other States are suffering as a result of increases in petrol prices. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said this was the fault of the Fraser Government. That Government brought in parity pricing for two reasons-namely, future exploration and also finding alternatives to petrol-for example, using liquefied petroleum gas and other ways to fuel a motor vehicle. I see the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is present in the chamber. I point out to him that I believe we have a responsibility to try to find alternatives to petrol. For example, a new fleet of cars is now serving Parliament. It includes Ford LTDs and cars with V8 engines which are driven by petrol. They travel some 16 miles to the gallon. Those vehicles could easily be converted to LPG. Canberra has magnificent roads and those vehicles travel on the flat all the time. There is only a reduction in power of about 10 per cent associated with the use of LPG. This would present a wonderful opportunity to conserve our petrol and change over to the abundant LPG that exists in this country. The Japanese are laughing all the way to the bank. We export about 80 per cent of our LPG to Japan. They are loving it. Here the poor consumers of Australia, particularly in my State of Tasmania, are paying 55c a litre for petrol. We talk about tax summits, having more money in our pockets and so on, but the most important aspect is fuel. It costs the average worker about $5 to $6 a week just to go to work. We have a unique opportunity to try to do something about petrol. I was one who at the time of its introduction debated the question of parity pricing. I was worried about the position because I knew Australia wanted to be self-sufficient. I do not want to be dependent on the Arabs or on other countries for our fuel. We were 75 per cent self-sufficient and had a margin of 25 per cent to make up. But let us face the fact that the base was not right. There was a disunity in petrol pricing through Australia. There was not parity anywhere, we did not have the base right. I saw a report today which said that in 1975 the price of petrol in New South Wales was 15c a litre; in Tasmania it was 20c a litre. The point is that the base was wrong, so how could one introduce import parity pricing when these things were not organised in Australia? We have a unique opportunity today to do something about the price of petrol. I hope that the Government includes that item in the summit. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said when he was in Opposition, it was stealth at the petrol pump-a way of getting taxation without people realising it. If those words were true then, they are true now. I hope he includes petrol in the summit and starts talking about petrol prices. I hope that the Opposition will push this matter harder than it has. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Mr Sinclair's amendment) be added. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J.Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidHoward, J. W. Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H.Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry McGauran, P. J. Darling, E. E.Wilson, I. B. C. Hollis, C.Dobie, J. D. M. Dawkins, J. S.Andrew, J. N. Klugman, R. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Address-in-Reply: Presentation to Governor-General Mr SPEAKER —I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply, at Government House, at 5 p.m. this afternoon. I should be glad if the mover of and the seconder to the motion, together with other honourable members, would accompany me to present the Address. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.30) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1985). The proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The proposals increase the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $34.70 to $36.94 per kilolitre operating on and from 1 April 1985. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) announced this change on 25 March 1985 in accordance with Government policy. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suspend the sitting until 8 p.m. in order that I may present the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House. As mentioned previously, I shall be glad if the mover and seconder, together with other honourable members, will accompany me to present the Address. Sitting suspended from 4.31 to 8 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that, accompanied by honourable members, I waited today upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency's Speech on the opening of the first session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, agreed to by the House today. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Mr Speaker: Thank you for your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me. It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the Message of Loyalty from the House of Representatives, to which the Address gives expression. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs, Eighty-third series-second report, together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The report I have just tabled reports on the six outstanding items in the eighty-third series of variations to the city plan. The previous Committee approved eight variations in the series in its first report tabled on 3 October 1984. The Committee recommends approval of five of the variations and defers consideration of one of the items until additional information is received. I wish to comment on only two of the variations. The first is variation 4, which proposes an addition to the city plan of an access road off Fremantle Drive in Stirling to enable the development of an area of open space for standard residential housing. Objectors to the proposal were concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic as a result of the development, the inadequacy of the access to the proposed development, the danger of having driveways directly opposite the Chapman Primary School, and the extent of removal of trees which will result from the development. The Committee considers that many of the objectors' concerns about the proposal are valid. The Committee defers consideration of the proposal until additional information is provided by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories about a number of matters which were of concern to objectors. An objector to the proposal was concerned about the adequacy of parking in Kambah Village, particularly in the vicinity of the Kambah Inn. The objector also claimed that the opening of a restaurant with a liquor licence would effect the Inn's sales. The National Capital Development Commission considers the car parking situation in Kambah Village is adequate in terms of the distribution of car parking around the whole centre. The Department of Territories told the Committee that no other objections had been received relating to traffic problems or parking problems associated with the Kambah Village centre. The Committee is not in a position to assess the effects, if any, on the liquor sales of the Inn or on other restaurants in the area of the establishment of an additional restaurant. The Committee has therefore approved the variation. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee on protection of Bungle Bungle, together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The report which has just been tabled is the first report of the Committee of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The report concerns the assistance the Commonwealth Government can give to the Western Australian Government to ensure that a proposed national park in the East Kimberleys of northern Western Australia is properly managed. I am sure many members of the House will be aware of the extensive media coverage of Bungle Bungle. the articles commented on the beauty and special values of the region, but I can assure honourable members that they did not do justice to Bungle Bungle. The total area of the Bungle Bungle massif is 450 square kilometres and it includes massed towers and gorges, sheer cliffs and waterfalls, with the sandstone hills strikingly marked in horizontal orange and black bands like huge beehives. Committee members who participated in the inspections which were conducted in July 1984 were of the view that Bungle Bungle is one of the most spectacular areas they have ever seen. There is no doubt that as more people become aware of its unique beauty, pressures to visit it will increase. This rush of visitors is of particular concern to the Committee. At present, the area is in a natural state, but the sandstone is mechanically weak and it can be crushed in the hand and readily crumbles under foot. Once the surface skin is broken, the sandstone rapidly disintegrates. It is our belief that should uncontrolled access be allowed the area could quickly deteriorate. While the present aerial tours present no problems, the limited overland tourist excursions now taking place have the potential to cause irreparable damage. A working group established by the Western Australian Government concluded that the land forms of Bungle Bungle are not just visually spectacular, but are also of national and international scientific significance. It concluded that the scale and complexity of the sandstone formations ranks it as the best example of this type of topography in Australia and one of the outstanding examples of sandstone massif in the world. The working group recommended that an extensive national park centred on Bungle Bungle be established. It is the Committee's view that for the recommendations to be fully implemented it may be necessary for the Commonwealth Government to provide financial and other assistance to the Western Australian Government. The Committee was told during its inspections that in 1982-83 only $100,000 was spent by the Western Australian Government on all Kimberley national parks. The proposal to establish a Bungle Bungle national park should effectively double the area of national parks in the Kimberley region. Mr Speaker, I now come to the recommendations of the report. Our recommendations relate to Aboriginal involvement in park development and management, the long term financial assistance required and the interim measures which recognise the immediate management needs. The Committee had extensive discussions with the Aboriginal community at Turkey Creek. The question of Aboriginal title to the land is outside the competence of the Committee as it is a matter for the Aboriginal traditional owners and relevant government authorities to determine. However, we firmly believe that the heritage and culture of the Aboriginal people should be seen as equal in importance to the natural and physical values of the national park and we fully support Aboriginal involvement in its management and economic development in this respect. It was of particular relevance to us that two of the traditional owners who travelled with the Committee demonstrated their intimate knowledge of the Bungle Bungle by showing us a number of places of special interest and significance. We believe that resources should be provided to the community to enable them to be meaningfully involved in the development at an early stage, and we have recommended accordingly. In addition we have recommended that the Commonwealth, in consultation with Western Australia, offer assistance in developing Aboriginal training programs for the traditional owners. The Committee sought the views of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service concerning the nature of the assistance the Commonwealth could make to the Western Australian Government. The Parks Service advised the Committee of the States assistance program, which is intended to establish co-operative State-Commonwealth programs for, amongst other things, the planning and management of national parks and reserves of outstanding national or international significance. It is our view that the area which we visited fits this criterion and have recommended assistance under this program. The development of a full plan of management may take some time but it is essential that interim measures be adopted as soon as possible to protect the area. The National Parks Service advised that a complete prohibition of visitors until a plan of management has been prepared and facilities made available may not be feasible, but that ranger staff should be on site during the visitor period. Other short term actions would be the erection of signposts and barriers and the initiation of a public information and education program. We have recommended that the Commonwealth Government offer assistance to the Western Australian Government to provide minimum essential works and station rangers in the park during the visitors season. The Committee considers that further investigation into the heritage values of the region is warranted. Should these studies confirm the findings of the Western Australian Working Group, special and additional Commonwealth assistance may be justified. We have recommended that such a study be undertaken. Finally, Mr Speaker, the Committee realises that only, a small area of the Kimberley region was visited and other areas in the north of Western Australia may require special assistance. The Committee believes however that, because Bungle Bungle is at present little known and unaffected but is likely to be subjected to increasing pressures as it become better known, special consideration for this area is justified. The Committee fully recognises that the management of national parks in Western Australia is a State responsibility but believes that co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States can be agreed, to assist the State in the management of this most magnificent and unique area. I commend the report to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave- As a previous Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation I have a special interest in the continuing workings of the Committee. I should like to commend the Committee for producing yet another report. Unfortunately, I, like so many other members of this House-in fact, so many other people in Australia-have not yet had the opportunity to visit Bungle Bungle. I must say that the name itself is attractive, particularly to politicians. I had the opportunity, very briefly, to read the report and I commend the Committee for its heavy emphasis on the need for co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government in relation to the management of national parks. There can be no doubt that the primary responsibility rests with the State Government but, from the very brief time that I have had to read this report, I think that we have a new area which is largely undisturbed, giving both the State and Commonwealth governments the opportunity to plan very effectively for a maximum beneficial use of what is obviously a very attractive area. One of the facets of national park management that we have to take into account is the increasing emphasis that the people place on taking advantage of national parks. Unfortunately one of the main results of heavy public use of fragile areas is that they suffer real damage and deterioration. When a new area such as this is being opened up, as it were, we have the opportunity for the State and the Commonwealth to get together. I think it is also a very good thing that the Aboriginal traditional inhabitants are encouraged and have the opportunity to take a full part in the planning for the future use of this recreational area. This gives further opportunity for greater co-operation between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals in the use and management of areas such as Bungle Bungle. I hope that the co-operation stressed by the Committee takes place because we have seen in the past the very real problems that can arise when a State government and a Federal government come into conflict about the best way of managing what is, after all, an area of great interest not only to State residents but to Australian residents as a whole and to international visitors. I have no doubt that this area of Australia, whilst it is very remote at present, will prove increasingly attractive to overseas visitors. That is why I commend the Committee for putting an emphasis on getting the planning right at this early stage, rather than going ahead without a clear, concise and relevant approach to the problems of protecting what is, after all, from the Committee's report, not only an extremely attractive area but one which could very easily suffer damage by inadvertent use or inadequate planning. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —by leave-I had the pleasure and the honour of going to the Kimberleys with the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to view this most unique and magnificent area of Australia. From the outset we did not know what to expect to see there. We flew over Lake Argyle, a huge dam which is going to waste. This area of water, which contains nine and a half times the volume of Sydney Harbour, is sitting there with nothing do do. It is a shame the dam was built and nothing is being done about the use of the water there at the moment. The proper management of this area is most important. Steps were taken by the Committee to look at the area to make certain that management plans are set in place before this tourist treasure becomes known to the world. It is tucked away in a fairly inaccessible area, which is probably good for it at the moment. That means it is extremely hard for people to get to it and, therefore, it will not be ruined. I trust that the report will give impetus to those who will manage this area to look after it properly when it is opened up. In one of the areas we visited in the Bungle Bungle there was a huge waterfall which went into an extremely deep canyon and wound away into the desert. The Aboriginal people accompanying us and showing us this area were quite afraid of this particular waterfall. If one looked at the waterfall as it wound down through the red and white rocks and the green gum trees, one could see a definite rainbow of mist. This was the place of the dreaming time of the rainbow serpent. I could see it there. From the feelings these people expressed in this particular area, one could appreciate their deep and sensitive feelings for this particular area. It is a magnificent area. I am glad that it is away from traffic and I am glad that it is hard for people to get to. I trust that people will not go there at the moment but will keep away from it until it is properly managed and organised. A few tourist operators have already been there, and one can see the tracks where the buses have gone through the desert to get there. Only a dozen or a couple of dozen tourist parties have been there, and I trust that other people will not go there for some time. It is an area that should be protected and this is the first step in protecting it. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-Unlike my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I did not have the opportunity to visit the Bungle Bungle. After a quick study of the report, and having known for some years the sensitivities of the members of the Committee, I have not the slightest doubt that their observation and inspection of the Bungle Bungle demonstrated to the members of the Committee one of the most spectacular areas they had ever seen. Sensitivity and a deeper appreciation of the long term need to protect areas of Australia's environment are not things we should take too lightly. We live in an age in which most things are seen purely in terms of their utilitarian value. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) noted, if a tourist bus operator can see a way of getting through the mountains or across the desert to show people the beauties on the other side, human nature being what it is attempts will be made to do so. On the other hand, I think we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can for any indefinite period lock up an area which has significant ecological and other value and which will be of tremendous benefit to what we are told by the Government will be a growing tourist boom in future years. Consequently there is obviously going to be greater pressure on the Bungle Bungle area and on Western Australia to improve and to increase the tourist opportunities in that State. In that context, especially when dealing with Western Australia, which is jealous of its authority over its own administration, and in the context of the fact that land management is primarily a State responsibility under the Australian Constitution, quite clearly the role which the Commonwealth can play is somewhat limited. Nevertheless I believe, and the Opposition believes, that the Commonwealth must where it possibly can, and given the realities of financial difficulties, be in a position to give advice and support through the National Parks and Wildlife Service to assist the States-any State of Australia-to better improve their management systems for the maintenance of long term national parks for future generations to enjoy. This was an observation which the Committee accepted in its second recommendation when it talked to the need for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, in consultation with the relevant Western Australian authorities and, of course, the Aboriginal community, to develop programs for training Aborigines in park management as well as development in terms of an effective and viable long term management plan. Unique and magnificent areas are surprisingly not rare in Australia because we are a vast land mass, and with a population of only 15 million obviously a large part of our nation has not been covered, shall we say in the normal sense of the term, by human development. It is for that reason that I think governments in the future will need to give very serious consideration to whether the term 'national park' is necessarily appropriate. There are in fact State parks in Australia. Most parks are State parks. Only a handful of parks are by normal definition national parks. The term 'national park' was in fact an American concept which was borrowed by the then New South Wales government for the gazetting and establishment of the first national park in Australia, which is the area of land from Sutherland on the outskirts of Sydney towards Wollongong. But the tendency within the community is to presume that the term 'national park' means what it says and that parks are somehow or other seen to be part of the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. I therefore think there is a need to establish through the appropriate ministerial machinery a definitional arrangement by which national parks are seen to be those which are primarily world heritage listed parks or, secondly, a range of parks which contain elements of absolute unique natural or other characteristics which the States and the Commonwealth both agree should be given a higher degree of maintenance, management and long term protection than perhaps would be the case with State parks, which would fall into perhaps somewhat lesser categories. The point I am making is that the complexities of land management in a country which is going to develop will require State and Commonwealth governments to be much more precise in their definitional approaches to issues such as this so that areas such as Bungle Bungle, if they do qualify in that context, will be areas of such unique scientific interest and ecological importance that they should indeed be seen as national parks. But it would not be necessary or appropriate to suggest, for example, that every area of land currently called a national park in the State of Western Australia would necessarily measure up to the outstanding characteristics which my colleagues have emphasised are to be found in the Bungle Bungles. While this is a short report, I commend my colleagues for its production. I think it is important for the Commonwealth Parliament to be seen to be continually interested in these areas. No doubt this report will develop a certain amount of community interest in Western Australia and I trust, through that, greater pressure on the Western Australian Government to take the necessary action for the protection of this unique area. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —by leave-I thank the House and the previous speakers who have spoken to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I begin also by thanking my colleagues who visited Bungle Bungle with me. They showed a degree of enthusiasm and energy that one would expect in a committee of this kind. The Committee Secretary, Mr John Cummins, served us excellently and I believe helped us produce a very good report. Bungle Bungle is a very significant and also a relatively unknown area. Two or three aspects I think deserve emphasis. Our colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, has spoken about Aboriginal involvement. It is very heartening to go to an area and see Aborigines being involved in a positive way in a particular project that we believe is important. Aborigines are seeking involvement as rangers and guides in the area and, as the Chairman of the Committee and previous speakers have said, that is a very important involvement because they have much to contribute. There is a difference between getting what I would describe as a superficial understanding and an in-depth understanding. We had the company of two Aborigines who were able to explain so much to us and make us much more aware of the richness of the area. If other people had the good fortune to go there and have such guides to explain the circumstances to them, they would come away with the same concern that we have. They would also come away with a sense of optimism-an optimism that the Aborigines have much to contribute to this country and to us. That is a very important shift of emphasis as we often only think of ourselves as being the ones who contribute to them. In that sense I felt relatively culturally impoverished. The Aborigines had so much to teach us and they did it very generously. The future of that area is very rich and I commend the thoughts of the Chairman. He expressed them very well. We also had the good fortune to visit the Keep River National Park in the Northern Territory which provided a very useful example for us. It is a very important and spectacular area and it showed the advantages of rangers putting in appropriate guides and signposts for tourists. Tourism is an active and energetic part of the Keep River National Park. We will always have a conflict, to an extent, between conservation areas and the demands of tourism. But we can get a sensible understanding and show people who go to such areas that they can enjoy them in a more sensitive way. The Keep River National Park provides an example of how that can be done. We hope that eventually the same sort of arrangement can be developed for Bungle Bungle so that the tourists who go there will be aware of the sensitivity of the area and will have explained to them some of its richness and historical significance. Aborigines who have lived in the caves have left their marks in the area and that is very important, aside from the simple physical spectacle of the place, which is one of the most outstanding sights on earth. Some people have said that it is a spectacle greater than the pyramids. I can understand why they say that because it is certainly a spectacular area. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) referred to the Western Australian Government. In any recommendations we make we must be aware of the role of State governments. He expressed those views sensibly and we, as members of the Committee, commend those thoughts to the House. We go into those areas with a recognition that State governments-in this case the Western Australian Government-have a role. Fortunately, the Western Australian Government also understood that down the road there was likely to be a crisis over Bungle Bungle if the tourism developers moved in too rapidly, and sensibly it set up a working party. I commend to the House the fact that the Premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke, and the Minister for Environment, Ron Davies, along with the members for that area, Peter Dowding and Ernie Bridge were sensible in bringing to the public's awareness the importance of the area. In conclusion, one of the things that members of the Committee share is a concern about environmental issues. This has been expressed by previous speakers. I emphasise it very much. Unfortunately, in so many environmental issues in Australia, Federal and State governments get in after the event, after the crisis has developed, when it is already an issue in the newspapers and they are fighting with some other group that wishes to proceed in a different direction. The new members of the Committee and the older members share a concern that the role of our Committee should be to act well in advance of the crises occurring in environmental matters. I know that the Chairman of the Committee has that very strong philosophy and I commend it to the House. If governments, be they Federal or State, be they of the Australian Labor Party or of the other parties, can show a concern for looking at environmental issues in advance and dealing with them before they become matters of public controversy and crisis we will be much richer in terms of resolving our problems. I commend that philosophy to the House. If the Environment and Conservation Committee can do nothing else in the life of this Parliament than to take on environmental issues such as Bungle Bungle before they become a problem, the Australian community will be enriched by that experience and that work. It is a pleasure to speak to this report. I know that many of my colleagues in this chamber feel very strongly about the qualities of which the Chairman has spoken. I certainly commend the report to the House and to the Australian community. Mr SPEAKER —I must congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. When I was Chairman of that Committee and later when the Committee was chaired by the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr Mackellar), we were never able to get leave for five of its members to speak on a report. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the first report of the Joint Committee on Publications which sat in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Hunt had moved by way of amendment: 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'. Mr SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed to cover this Bill, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(8.33) —Mr Speaker, you are, of course, perfectly correct; four Bills-the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill-are involved in this package. However, the critical Bill is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill, the function of which is to abolish the Australian Meat Research Committee and replace it with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. I commenced speaking on this Bill last night and I was speaking when the motion was moved for the adjournment of the House. Last night I said that there were some positives and some negatives in this Bill and I covered then what I considered to be the positive aspects of the changes and the proposed structure of the new Corporation. Tonight I will cover what I consider are some of the potential negatives. I do this not just for the sake of criticising the Bill, but because I think that the meat and livestock producers, who expect quite a bit from the changes that are contained in this package of Bills, may be expecting a little too much. I also think that it is important that they be vigilant in their own cause in examining some aspects of the Bill that they apparently have not considered in detail and to which they might pay detailed attention. One of the criticisms that producers have made of the Bills is in the change of membership of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation compared with the Australian Meat Research Committee. Section 9 of the Meat Research Act sets out the membership of the AMRC. It contrasts with clause 12 of this Bill. Of the AMRC 12 members, seven had to represent Australian meat producers. Those people were appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Australian Meat Board. That provision meant that a clear majority of the AMRC were people who represented meat producers, the people who are providing the money, the wherewithal. The total amount is something in excess of $10m per annum-half provided by the meat producers and half by the Government. Under the Bill the Corporation has 11 members, a chairperson, a government member, the Executive Director and eight other members. Meat and livestock producers did ask that of the eight other members there be a majority who were meat producers. That would have been close to the composition of the AMRC which, I believe, actually did a very good job. However, that provision is not in this Bill as it was in the Meat Research Act. Some producers feel strongly that it should be in the Bill. Others say that they do not insist on its being in the Bill but they would like an assurance from the Minister that a majority of those eight other members, to be appointed on the recommendations of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee, be producers. I have consulted the second reading speech made by the Minister for Primary Industry when he brought this Bill into this House and I found that, whilst he refers to the composition of the new Corporation, he gives no such assurance. It is my impression that many producers believe that they have been given some prior tacit assurance of this. I request the Minister, when replying to the second reading debate, to clarify whether it is his intention to aim for at least half of those eight other members mentioned in clause 12 (d) to be meat producers. At this stage there is nothing on the record to give meat and livestock producers that sort of assurance. The second aspect of the Bill that I would like to highlight is the quite extraordinary powers of the Minister under the provisions of this Bill. This is essentially a research Bill, the composition will be responsible, as I have said, for more than $10m per annum, rising according to the Minister's estimates to a possible $14m per annum in three years' time. The Minister will have, under the provisions of this Bill, what are really quite extraordinary powers in that context. The Meat Research Act very much circumscribed the Minister's powers and gave to the Committee a great deal of independence in determining which research programs actually received funding. The Act set the framework for what type, fields of research, were envisaged. Nevertheless the Committee had a great deal of independence in deciding which research programs would be followed and which research projects, when submitted to it, would be funded. Under the Bill that independence is no longer guaranteed. It will be a matter for the Minister's discretion whether independence exists. This matter has to be of concern to the many people who are involved in meat and livestock research in Australia, be they in tertiary institutions such as universities, be they part of the various State departments of agriculture, or, indeed, be they in any of the Commonwealth bodies associated with agricultural research, such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The Bill proposes that the Corporation will draw up research and development plans. These research and development plans that the Corporation devises will be put into operation under an annual operational plan. Requirements for research and development plans are contained in clauses 30, 31, 32 and 33. Operational plans are outlined in clauses 35 and 36. These clauses give the Minister a great deal of power. We find that that Corporation has to draw up research and development plans and submit them to the Minister, who has the absolute right of approval of the plans. He also has a right to reject a plan-to send it back to the Corporation. He has a right to amend a plan or to request the Corporation to put forward a revised plan. He may actually initiate requests for matters he wants included in the research and development plan. He has similar rights in relation to the annual operational plans. Half of this money, of course, comes from the meat and livestock producers and half comes from the public purse. It is right that Ministers should have a responsibility for scrutiny of and input into the operation of the Corporation. But the Bill contains absolutely no requirement that there be a public revelation about any such toings and froings. The matter of approval of a research and development plan is covered in clause 31, which states that a research and development plan has to be submitted to the Minister for approval and cannot come into force until the day on which it is approved by the Minister or the day of commencement of the period to which it relates, whichever is the later. There are certain requirements in relation to procedures to be followed, but the producers who are providing the other half of the money-the other half of that something more than $10m at present-may not even know any of the Minister's interventions. It is important that this be highlighted because one of the features of the Bill as presented by the Government is a matter of a reporting system and accountability to the producers who provide that half of the $10m to $11m. This accountability is to be achieved by means of the Corporation's annual report, about which I shall say a few words in a moment. If it happened that the Minister for some reason-perhaps political, or perhaps misguided ideas about the industry-wanted to say to the Corporation 'I do not like your research and development plan; I do not think that an aspect of it is one that ought to be proceeded with', there is absolutely no requirement that anybody ever be told that. It is quite likely that these Ministerial inventions or possibly very significant decisions on production, processing or marketing research for our meat and livestock industry would never be known. The Minister is, after all, a political person, not a producer or necessarily an agricultural expert. This brings me to the subject of accountability. Last night when I was speaking I said that I thought the industry had been sold a bit of a pup on this Bill. I have been a member of the other place for some years. Annual reports are matters in which members of the Senate take a fairly close interest. When I hear a member of the Government saying to producers 'Look, you are going to get the annual report, then you are going to have an annual general meeting, and this annual report is going to be the basic document for that meeting; this is how we will be accountable to you', I think there really is something the producers are not being told, and I want to tell them. I want to tell them that it is highly likely that by the time that annual general meeting is held, with them arriving at it with the Corporation's latest annual report in their hands, that report is likely to be 12 months out of date. The procedure for annual reports is as specified in the Audit Act, and there is reference to that in this Bill. But all that the Audit Act requires is that, as soon as possible after 30 June, the Corporation must present its annual report to the Minister who, within 15 sitting days of Parliament after receiving the report, must table it in Parliament. In the normal course of events, that is usually about eight months after the end of the financial year accounted for in the report. I will not bore the House tonight with all the reasons why that happens but I will give some quick examples because they are particularly relevant to this Bill. The Department of Primary Industry 1983-84 report-the financial year that finished on 30 June 1984-was tabled in the House of Representatives on 22 February 1985. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation 1983-84 report-it is this Corporation that the Research and Development Corporation will come under-was tabled in the House of Representatives on 25 February 1985. That is about standard performance. This Bill provides that approximately three months after the tabling of the Corporation's report in Parliament there will be an annual general meeting. It is very easy to see that we are really running into about a 12-month time frame following 30 June of the previous year. The report is going to be quite out of date in terms of its reporting of the activities of the Corporation. The meat and livestock producers are going to attend this annual general meeting-I believe at a cost of about $200,000 out of the Corporation's budget, and they will also have paid for the report they have in their hands. It is not going to be a gift; its cost will also be paid out of the funds available to the Corporation. I say to the meat and livestock producers that they are not getting very much accountability. When we add to that the fact that there is no requirement that that report contain the details of the toing and froing on research plans that I referred to just a few minutes ago. There is no requirement that any of that interaction between the Corporation, which is supposed to be independent, and the Minister be reported. We could end up with a rather weak document and therefore very limited accountability. Other corporations have requirements that they include in their reports similar material. They must include in their annual report details of communications that have flowed between the statutory authorities and the Minister. This Bill does not have that requirement. Finally, I say to producers: Be vigilant, insist on that information and make it work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(8.46) —I am pleased to be able to support my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in all this legislation. This legislation has been introduced into this Parliament at a time of great strain for the Australian meat industry. Australia's traditional markets throughout the world are under threat not only from South America but also from the European Economic Community. Australia must be very vigilant to maintain its share of the world market in beef. I am sure that this legislation will help to contribute to that. The Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation replaces the Australian Meat Research Committee which was formerly operating. This reorganisation of the research schemes has occurred after much discussion generated by a number of committees. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Commonwealth's role in rural research and extension services was published in November 1982. Another committee was the Balderstone working group to Provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture, which published its report on agricultural policy in September 1982. The third group was an in-house joint management review of the administration of research schemes in primary industry, which published its report in May 1983. Therefore, the Minister has arrived at the proposals in this legislation after much research of his own and having taken into account many other factors. The important feature of this legislation is that it will allow the Corporation flexibility in its research requirements. Formerly, even slight modification of a project required a ministerial authorisation. The new Corporation should be able to respond sensibly to the changing situations presented. However, I wish to place particular emphasis on the need for rural research. In a 1972 study entitled 'Evaluating Returns to Research in Pasture Improvements', Duncan calculated internal rates of return on pasture research ranging from 22 per cent to 80 per cent. Overseas studies in numerous countries have estimated internal rates of return ranging from 30 to 60 per cent on research and development in a wide variety of rural industries, including sugar, cotton, wheat, coarse grains and livestock. There is every reason to expect that such rates of return are obtainable from research and development in the meat and livestock industries in Australia. Given the attractiveness of the economic returns on rural research and development, it becomes important to ensure that its organisation and funding are efficient and effective. The benefits of innovations flowing from meat and livestock research and development will accrue to the industries on the one hand and to the rest of the community on the other. Potential benefits to the industries are the reduced input costs, increased productivity, expanded product range and increased returns from quality improvement. Benefits to the rest of the community will include lower produce prices to domestic consumers, increased quality of products, new consumer products, and the unforeseen application of innovations to other industries and other rural and development activities. The economic performance of the meat and livestock industries depends on their ability to adapt and adjust rapidly and appropriately to changes in their economic environment. This ability will, in turn, depend on the timely introduction of cost-effective innovations. If our industries are to retain or improve their international competitiveness, we must attempt to make technological breakthroughs which must be translated rapidly into practice. Given the importance of timely innovation to the economics of the industries and therefore to the community, meat and livestock research and developments need to be conducted so as to maximise the commercial return from the funds spent on them. This is best achieved by an innovative and business-like approach to the organisation and funding of such activities. While these attributes have not been entirely missing from the operations of the Australian Meat Research Committee, the methods of funding and organising of that body are not conducive to them As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, the Australian Meat Research Committee operates under administrative legal and financial constraints which detract from its capacity to pursue an innovative and entrepreneurial role. It is unable to enter contracts, manage its own funds or approve its own research and development program and cannot be held legally responsible for its actions. Ministerial intervention in its operations is costly in terms of time and resources. It does not reward good performance and works against innovation. A more flexible and commercially appropriate organisational structure is highly desirable. I mentioned earlier that the result of better research facilities would be a reduction in farm costs. Farm costs are the great worry for primary producers. Prices for agricultural goods relative to other goods have shown a long term decline of 1.5 per cent per annum over the past two or three decades. Over the past 30 years prices received by farmers rose by only 2.2 per cent per annum, whereas prices paid by farmers rose by 5.4 per cent per annum and consumer prices rose by 4.9 per cent per annum. In the period 1980-83 farm costs increased under the Fraser Government by 34 per cent while farm commodity prices increased by only 12 per cent. In my own State of Queensland, the farm costs increased by 34 per cent, the same as for the rest of Australia. Another consideration is the fact that these measures will be aimed at fewer producers in the long term. Since 1973 the number of rural establishments with meat cattle has declined from 150,486 to 97,352, a decline of 53,134 holdings. Of this total, 47,308 or some 90 per cent have come from those with fewer than 300 head, 50 per cent of the attrition coming from holdings with fewer than 50 head. In contrast, the holdings with large herds over 1,500 have increased in number over the period, with some setbacks being experienced over the last three years due to bad seasons. In Queensland over the past seven years the number of grazing holdings has been reduced by 18.6 per cent, declining by 4,870 from 26,259 to 21,389 at present. Again, those under 750 hectares have borne the brunt of the economic battle. The evidence is conclusive that the need for cost containment has resulted in amalgamation of smaller properties and expansion of already sizable holdings to effect economies of scale. I mentioned earlier, that the effect of increased research would be lower produce prices to domestic consumers and increased quality of products. I would like to bring the House's attention to an important factor which has reduced beef sales. The convenience factor and comparatively reasonable prices offered by the growing fast food chains and independent takeaways which in 1983 totalled a turnover of $1.8 billion has also contributed to a shift from red to white meats. It has been argued that this shift, which affects both the domestic and food services sections, also reflects a greater awareness by the public of nutritional aspects such as the effects of cholesterol levels in the blood. The growing impact of the health food industry in Australia, with its vigorous marketing policies, is seen as another factor contributing to a shift from animal protein to vegetable protein consumption. In 1983, the health food industry had an estimated sales of $200m. I believe that these Bills offer the industry room for flexibility and should enhance the research capacities available to the industry. We must also be aware, as I said earlier in my remarks, of the need to continue to market our product on overseas markets. In particular, the ever-important Japanese sector to the Australian industry is another direct challenge from many factors. The enormous pressure that is being brought by United States producers on Japan to take more of their product is something that Australia must continue to be aware of and vigilant towards. Australia needs to market its product more effectively in Japan where people are told that the grain-fed beef of the United States is far superior in quality to the grass-fed beef of Australia. This is neither true nor accurate, as many of us would be aware that the grass-fed beef primarily produced in Australia is much lower in fat content and therefore must be much more conducive to better health. I think it is worth pointing out to members of the Opposition that the slaughter levies will have no direct financial impact on government expenditures or receipts. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry and his staff on preparing and finally enacting legislation which will improve research in the meat industry. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.55) —In speaking to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill, I start by reiterating what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said when he mentioned that these Bills are the final stages of the Government's restructuring of the meat and livestock industry's administration. As has already been stated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Opposition has moved an amendment which reads: 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 honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has already outlined some of the direct improvements that are expected from the new Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. As has been pointed out by the Minister, this Corporation will have 11 members of which eight are selected by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. The selection will be on the basis of professional skills in the fields of livestock production, meatworks operation, research and development, economics, finance and business management. All this sounds very good and it is all very laudable. We have to support that, but there is one matter of concern which the honourable member for Moncrieff has already mentioned: There is no specific provision for livestock producers to be members of the board of the Corporation. It is very important that the Minister take this point on board and note it. I hope that the Minister will look into this point because it is vitally important. As livestock producers are providing 50 per cent of the funding of the Corporation, they quite rightly can expect 50 per cent of the say, at least of those eight members. As a matter of principle we suggest that the Minister aim to have four livestock producers as members of the board of the Corporation. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter. Clause 10 of the Bill states that the Corporation may consult with industry representatives. This is a pretty loose statement. We are rather concerned that, while the annual general meeting is an obligatory and ongoing matter, there should be further discussions throughout the year with industry representatives. Under the Bill there is no compulsion for that to happen. If the AMLRDC is to have the support of the industry, it is vitally important that it shows its willingness to consult. In fact, it should guarantee that it will consult on a regular basis. The honourable member for Moncrieff also mentioned the problems of accountability, so I will not go into those again. The Minister should respond to these matters because they are very important matters of concern. In clause 27 (5), dealing with annual general meetings, there is the question of the criteria for discussing a motion of no confidence in the chairman. These are the same criteria put forward in the Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill. I reiterate what I said on that Bill about the ability of members to move a motion of no confidence. Under this clause it is required that 75 per cent of the producer representatives and 75 per cent of the processor representatives on the register have to agree to a motion of no confidence if the chairman is not doing his job. Obviously we hope that this would never arise, and it is extremely unlikely to do so. Nonetheless, in a Bill such as this it is important that there be some mechanism should the situation ever arise when it is necessary to invoke it. I suggest that in practice it is impossible for the situation ever to arise in which 75 per cent of processors and 75 per cent of producers reach argeement on this. Again, I say to the Minister that this clause is irrelevant because it is meaningless. The honourable member for Moncrieff also mentioned the potential problem of the Minister's power to intervene in the direction of research. This is again a matter of real concern. It is something that the Minister has possibly overlooked, but it is nonetheless something that I think he should look at very closely before the Bill is proclaimed. I turn to the question of funding. The value of the meat industry in Australia these days is roughly $2.4 billion, which makes it a very large industry. Half of that value is in exports. The present research levy is 54c per head for cattle and there are proportionate amounts for other livestock. This levy raises about $3.5m. As has already been mentioned, this is matched on a dollar for dollar basis by the Federal Government. In fact, $7m goes to research and development in what is a very large industry-$2.4 billion industry. The $7m spent on a $2.4 billion industry works out at roughly 0.3 per cent of the gross value. I suggest, and I think that many people will agree with me, that that is not very much and I hope that that amount will be increased gradually in the not too distant future. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir, has already pointed out, this amount is considerably less than that which is spent on research and development in other primary industries. I note that the Bill proposes that the levy be increased to double that amount. Naturally, we welcome that proposal, and we hope that it will increase steadily but surely. However, we are rather concerned that the levy is only the least of the charges on livestock slaughter. When we look at other levies we find that $2.30 is going to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and $4 to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. Here is the big one-$5 goes to the meat inspection services for cattle. Mrs Sullivan —Shame! Mr HAWKER —That is right, shame! Those are levies on cattle. Levies are proportionately less on other classes of livestock. The cost of the Export Inspection Service has been repeatedly drawn to the attention of the Minister and to this House. Mrs Sullivan —He could not care less. Mr HAWKER —He does not seen to hear. Mr Ian Cameron —Where is the Minister? Mr HAWKER —He might turn up later. I note that the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) has a question on notice seeking current information on the level of overstaffing in the Export Inspection Service. This is a very important matter. It is something that was drawn to the Minister's attention on several occasions last year by me and by others. To date he has shown no inclination to improve the efficiency of the meat inspection services. This is why the Opposition has moved an amendment to draw the Minister's attention to this matter again. As was noted in the Senate Estimates Committee hearings last year, the cost of this overstaffing of the Export Inspection Service, with the number of meat inspectors who are on full pay but without any work, works out on an annual basis to be something like $6m. Furthermore, on the question of funding, it is most disturbing to see that funds to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have been cut. As every honourable member in this chamber would know, CSIRO has made an outstanding contribution to agricultural research since its formation some 60 years ago. It is most disturbing not only to see that there was a $10m cut in funding for CSIRO in the last Budget but also to note an answer to a question on notice given by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. The Minister was asked: Has an instruction been issued to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to alter the proportion of its funds spent on agricultural research . . . will . . . a lower proportion of funds being made available for this research . . . The Minister said: No formal instruction has been given- I ask honourable members to note that remark. The Minister suggested to CSIRO that it should work towards deploying resources away from agriculture. He further stated: On a distribution of research effort based on the percentage of total professional staff, I give the present distribution and the level of support for each sector I have proposed. He then outlined that in the rural industries the current percentage is 31.6 per cent of the staffing levels of CSIRO. Under the proposal the Minister is cutting it back to 29 per cent, which we view with considerable concern. Not only has this Government cut the budget of CSIRO by $10m, furthermore it is reducing the proportion of staff of CSIRO to work on rural industries. As has been mentioned in debate on the question of government funding, 50 per cent of the funds going to the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation will be provided by the Commonwealth on a matching dollar for dollar basis. The question arises: Is this justified? I turn to the Balderstone report on agricultural policy and issues and options for the 1980s which was presented to the previous Government in 1982. The recommendation in that report is quite clear. It reads: Overall, the Group believes that agricultural research funding should be increased and that increased expenditure should be concentrated on applied research. The benefits producers derive from research justify an increase in their proportionate contribution to research funding. The Commonwealth should also significantly increase its overall funding of agricultural research. The Group considers that research is an appropriate area for providing assistance to raise farmer incomes . . . I trust that the Government will continue to honour that undertaking of providing 50 per cent of the funds for research. The next question to look at is the return on funds. It is always rather difficult to evaluate that. I turn to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources entitled 'The Commonwealth's role in Rural Research and Extension Services', dated October 1982. The report indicates that rural research is a good investment. While, as I have said, quantifying the returns for research is difficult, the report states: Research relevant to Australia's agricultural sector-into both on-farm production and off-farm handling and processing-is vital to increasing the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian agriculture. The report continues: The need for a major public sector research effort is not disputed. The structure of rural industry makes it unlikely that industry could conduct its own research. Furthermore, I quote from the Industries Assistance Commission report entitled 'Financing Rural Research', produced in 1976, which again shows quite clearly the importance of Commonwealth funding in the rural research area. In part the report says: Economic analyses in a number of countries point to agricultural research being highly profitable and having a significant effect on the rate of productivity increase. If there is anyone around who doubts the importance of Commonwealth involvement, I trust he can now rest assured that it is not only important but also beneficial for the whole of Australia. I now turn to the direction of research. In the past most research in Australian agriculture has been production related. There is no questioning that the success in improving pasture production, parasite control, and general husbandry and reproduction has been tremendous. However, I believe that the future emphasis should be more on marketing related areas. At the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in January-the Conference was organised by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics-Mr Nick Evers, the Chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council, gave a clear direction of where much of the future emphasis on research should go. In an excellent paper entitled 'Future directions for the beef industry', when referring to problems of efficiency in the meat processing industry, which is one area of vital concern to all producers, he said: One option which could potentially meet some of the conflicting objectives involves initiatives to encourage increased meat processing . . . in Australia, for example: encouraging new product development; expanding the scope for further meat processing; encouraging by-product recovery and processing in Australia (rather than overseas); and increasing the table cuts trade. Realistically, the initiatives in this area will require research and development funding that is beyond the capacity of individual firms, particularly in the light of current depressed economic conditions. In this respect, an additional funding input will be required from the industry through the Australian Meat Research Committee and possibly the Government. Obviously, the Australian Meat Research Committee has changed its name now. Nonetheless, the recommendation is quite clear. At the conclusion of his address, he made this very clear: The final element of the new industry structure, the Australian Meat Research and Development Corporation, has a critical role to play in this area. The current research program is heavily geared to production issues. The challenge ahead is to develop a program that will address and resolve the marketing and cost-related issues of concern to all segments of the industry. I think that makes very clear the importance of research. I, along with every member on this side of the House-and, hopefully, every member on the other side-hope that the new Corporation will change the emphasis and will move towards more production-oriented research. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the meat and livestock industry is very conscious of the importance of the success of this new Corporation. I can assure you that everyone in the industry will be looking forward to seeing great results and great success. I also look forward to the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation achieving worthwhile results in this area. The important point that we must consider is that, with all the provisos that have already been outlined by the honourable member for Moncrieff, by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, and also by me, the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation will go from strength to strength and provide that boost that the livestock industry so badly needs now. However, we have outlined a few provisos, including the importance of producer representation on the Board of the Corporation and also improving consultation with the industry. There is no doubt that the producers have great expectations as to the performance of the new Corporation. We look forward to a positive contribution by this Corporation in assisting the recovery of the meat and livestock industry. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.12) —I have listened intently to the contributions made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and also by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). I noticed that they took time to support the amendment that has been moved to the motion for the second reading by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) which is really a motion of criticism and concern about the export inspection levy. As one speaks with representatives of the meat industry and with graziers generally, one finds a very great concern in the industry as to the effect of that levy. I think it needs to be said, however, that that levy was part of the Opposition's policy when in government. Members of the Opposition seem to have very short memories. They come into the chamber now and express this concern. They talk about how it will affect the competitiveness of the industry. But I can find nothing on the record which shows that members of the National Party, in particular, opposed the Fraser approach of establishing a concept of getting 50 per cent recovery of these charges from the industry. In fact, Mr Fraser and his Government, through the infamous razor gang, not only introduced the principle of the recovery of 50 per cent of the costs, but also applied that principle to the dairying and grain industries. So it is rather hypocritical for honourable members opposite to come forward now and talk about how bad this Labor Government is. No industry wants additional costs. I concur with those in the grazing industry who are unhappy with this, especially since the charges were increased. I reiterate that the principle of 50 per cent recovery was introduced by the Fraser Government. When the Hawke Labor Government took over, the whole thing was in train. I welcome the initiative that has been taken by the Hawke Labor Government and, in particular, by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in replacing and remodelling the Australian Meat Research Committee into a more independent, more flexible, more efficient and more incorporated body for meat and livestock research and development. The previous Liberal-National Party Government fiddled around. It talked with the industry about the idea, but it did nothing. The four Bills before the House are further proof of this present Government's willingness and preparedness to act on issues that are important to the rural sector. Members will be aware that a number of recent reports have questioned the organisation and funding of rural research schemes. As the Minister explained in his second reading speech, the accountability of some of the rural industry research funds to the industries they have been designed to serve has been called into serious question, as has the relevance of some of the research they fund to the technical, social economic and welfare needs of those industries. Recent studies have found the need for more flexibility in allocating funds to more diverse research activities. They have also found the need for greater consideration or weight to be given to value for money when selecting research projects. Moreover, in the specific area of meat research reports have highlighted unnecessary and unwarranted constraints on the Australian Meat Research Committee in the administrative, legal and financial spheres. The proposed Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation should be applauded by Opposition members who are truly interested in the future of the Australian meat and livestock industry, for it will certainly put meat and livestock research and development on a fully commercial and, more importantly, innovative basis. There is a need to maximise the return on research and development funds to the meat and livestock industries. The new Corporation has the potential to do just that, given the stated terms of reference, but there must be proper and adequate consultation with producers to ensure that research considerations can be applied practically. Drawn to my notice recently was an instance where research funds were given to develop a waterproof raincoat for sheep. I do not have the in-depth knowledge necessary to make proper comment on that, but maybe it is of value. However, it has been questioned by others within the meat industry. In the past 80 to 90 per cent of research funds have been directed at production and the emphasis today should centre on marketing research. In the past the emphasis has been on improving production, and then for the industry and marketing forces to try to sell that additional production. I suggest that in most instances the industry is well able to keep abreast or even ahead of productive and production changes and improvements. What industry needs to know is what to market and how to market. There have been major changes in consumer attitudes in recent years. It may well be said that the day of the roast beef dinner is fast disappearing. We have upon us the era of the fast food products and the microwave oven. There is a need for the meat industry to rethink its consumer marketing strategy. I strongly urge that the new Corporation research and develop fast food meat products. I urge that it research and develop new packaging and presentation techniques to tap the changing consumer and retailer demands. There is a need for ongoing market-place studies aimed at the consumer and his or her changing lifestyles. There is a need for research aimed also at reducing domestic and export marketing costs in the marketing chain. It is important that the cost-price squeeze confronting the beef producer in particular is appreciated and also addressed. In the first four years of this decade prices paid by cattlemen have risen by 33 per cent, but cattle prices have increased by only 14 per cent. Cattlemen across the length and breadth of Australia have appreciated and experienced a negative return on invested capital. That excludes capital appreciation. They have experienced that negative return on invested capital in every one of the last eight years, except in 1978-79. In 1982-83 there was a decrease of 2.4 per cent; in 1983-84, almost the same with 2.3 per cent; and in 1984-85, 0.1 per cent. This has resulted in limited increases in herd numbers. This must be a matter of concern to all those who are interested in the industry. In 1976 Australia had 33.4 million cattle; in 1985 this had dropped to 22.5 million, a drop of 33 per cent. Although there is a slight expectation of an increase in 1986, it will only go to around 23.2 million. The objective has to be to improve the return to cattle producers. This will be achieved by increased sales in the domestic and export markets and by reducing and containing costs. The processing costs need to be thoroughly investigated. There are constant claims of inefficiency in the processing industry, not because of labour costs, although this is often the butt of criticism from National Party members, but mainly because of out of date technology. The question is constantly asked: 'Why is it that in Australia the cost of processing is four times that in the United States of America?'. There is a need for these matters to be investigated thoroughly. I ask that the new Corporation investigate this aspect. Likewise, there needs to be a thorough investigation into carton trading in lieu of carcass trading. There is a need for a common description system for the export and domestic markets. I well appreciate the work that is being done and has been done by the working party of the Australian Agricultural Council and by the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council to establish a national trading language for red meat. This common description is necessary if the industry is to maintain quality consistency on the domestic market. When retailers buy in export cartons to make up those shortages of cuts of rump or T-bone or whatever they need to be able to be sure that the quality is there. Because of lack of this consistency and the lack of common description there is no guarantee. There is no existing system of relating the description used in the export market to the Australian domestic market. This results in uncertainty about quality and, therefore, can affect consumer sales. Honourable members will be aware of the latest trend of sale by description using computer technology. The technique eliminates the cost of double handling from property to sale yards, and from the sale yards to the meat works. There are other advantages. It reduces bruising of cattle and the need to hold cattle for two or three days during sale yard selling processes. We need to promote the direct sales concept, the concept of producer to processor, to give a better return to the cattle producers. I am confident that the new Corporation can deal with the matters I have raised, especially if it maintains the desirable and necessary contact with producers. I note what the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) says. There has been some concern as to the involvement or participation of the producer in the new Corporation. There has been some criticism as to the lack of producer representation that may be finally on the Corporation. I acknowledge that the new Corporation's make-up will be on the basis of qualifications and experience, as is the case with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I have not heard the same sort of criticism about the AMLC, but I take on board what is being said. There is a need to meet with producers, although I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry, because of his special interest and commitment to the rural sector of this nation, will ensure that the producers have their say. Let us ensure that it is more than just a say by representation. There is a need for this new Corporation to meet with producers through the Cattle Council of Australia at least twice a year. This would guarantee a producer input in the selection of research projects. That is a very important role. It would ensure that the practicality characteristic of such projects is constantly up front in the minds of researchers. Finally, it will allay the fears that the Corporation will not be industry-producer minded. I now turn to problems in the export area that should be addressed by the meat and livestock industries through their corporations. The Australian cattle industry is under threat in the international beef arena. That threat has come from the European Economic Community's farm subsidies approach and from Brazil's drive to generate foreign exchange which has increased its share of the world beef market from 10 per cent to 28 per cent in the last five years. That must be of major concern to beef producers and those in the industry. The Korean market is closed to protect domestic producers. Australia's share of the Japanese market falls in favour of the United States and as the United States applies pressure to reduce its trade deficit with Japan, again there is a growing and real concern for the industry. Coupled with this there are international problems. There has been a fall in domestic consumption in Australia as well as across the world. In Australia we see a fall in domestic consumption from 57 kilograms per head in 1979 to an estimate of only 39 kilograms per head in 1984. From the marketing aspect, the industry is open to some self-criticism. Australian exporters have undercut each other to secure orders. Promotion in the past has been inadequate. I note that the beef industry spends only $5m a year on promotion, yet the wool industry spends about $80m a year. The product has also been inaccurately described, so its consistency has varied. There is no need to canvass again the image problems associated with the beef substitution scandal. Additionally, exporters have also concentrated on high volume markets and have been reluctant to develop smaller, specialised markets. These are the negatives, but I also acknowledge that there have been pluses in the restructuring of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the formation of the Cattle Council of Australia, and a very important and significant change in allowing the AMLC to trade in its own right. If the private exporters are not prepared to develop the smaller, specialised markets, such as the hotel trade in the South East Asian area, the AMLC should use its new powers to establish these markets. I have spoken to some experts in the beef industry and they have estimated that this could mean additional sales of tens if not hundreds of tonnes of high quality meat. It also means the breaking of new ground in Asia, especially in China, which is establishing hotels and tourist centres to attract foreign exchange. The AMLC could encourage exporters to service and tap these markets, as the Corporation has control over export licences. I say again that if the private exporter is not prepared to do it, the AMLC ought to. On a broader basis, there is a need to adopt a strategy to counter the threat of the EEC to Australia's traditional markets. Australia should give the lead in developing what I call a counter trade bloc to the EEC. I see a need to set up a Pacific basin trading bloc, which would or could incorporate Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand, Australia and countries on the South American continent. The issue is not just a matter of finding new markets, because in present statistical terms the Australian beef industry will have great difficulty in filling the quota access in relation to the United States of America, Canada, Japan and Korea. It is not just an issue of finding new markets; it is an issue of protecting and shoring up the markets Australia already has. I contend that the concept of a Pacific basin trading bloc, or a Pacific economic community, needs further consultation, deliberation and consideration. It may be the only effective way outside solid, long term reciprocal trading arrangements of maintaining viable export markets for Australia's rural industries. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry should be applauded for tackling the EEC during the recent beef threat. But I am reminded, as no doubt all honourable members are, that the guarantee given by the EEC stands 'under foreseeable circumstances'. I do not believe that the EEC can be trusted. I have heard the EEC described as a rogue trader internationally. The ability for it to subsidise its exports and to load its subsidy costs on to the domestic market and the domestic consumer must be of major concern to everybody in Australia. We have to tackle the problem of the EEC. It shall be done, no doubt, by dialogue, by the talks our Minister and our Prime Minister have already had. I believe that it is a matter of strength against strength and the only way the EEC will listen is if we in Australia, in co-operation with other countries in the Pacific, are able to come up with a PEC or a Pacific basin trading bloc. This must be a matter of special consideration by this Government and the rural industry bodies. I am so pleased with the approach this Government is taking to rural industry. As a previous State member of parliament, I went through the calamity of 1974 and 1975 when, as a Labor person, wherever one went one was lampooned, attacked and criticised for the Labor Party's supposed attitude to the man on the land. I say to the House that the change is here and it has been wrought by the Minister for Primary Industry and the present Labor Government. We have seen it in so many areas. I believe that the four Bills before the House tonight are further proof not only of the Government's willingness to address the problems but also of its commitment to those rural industries to protect and ensure that they go on in the interests of the Australian economy. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.30) —It is my pleasure tonight to speak to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill and cognate Bills. I also wish to support the amendment put to the House by the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I strongly support this amendment on behalf of all beef producers of Australia. Never did we support the payment of inspection fees. We have never given in to the idea that the Government ought to put a levy on cattle after they have left their owners. Once the hammer falls on a beast at auction the animal is taken for slaughtering where this inspection levy is charged to the processor. This levy is charged back to the producer. This inspection levy is for an inspection of the health of the beast. I have always argued, and all beef producers in Australia will continue to argue, that while this levy is being imposed for health inspection all Australians should be responsible for paying it. The levy ought to be paid out of Consolidated Revenue and ought not to be charged to the beef producers. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said what a great job the Australian Labor Party is doing for the beef industry and for primary industry in general. I question some of the comments he made. In particular, he said that the Labor Party was doing good things. I question him about what is happening in the dairy industry and the sugar industry. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has now left the chamber. Where on earth is he? He has gone again. The Bob Hope of the bush has left the House. I would have thought that he would have been here to listen to what we on this side of the House have to contribute to the debate. I suggest to the honourable for Capricornia that we already trade, in conjunction with New Zealand, with other markets in the Pacific basin. We sell beef to many countries in that region, particularly Japan. The great white leader of the Labor Party, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was going to increase sales to the Japanese. He went to Japan with the Minister for Primary Industry for some weeks and said all sorts of things while there but came back empty-handed. We have since seen a reduction in the quota to the Japanese market, not an increase. I say to all primary producers in Australia: Beware of the Labor Party and do not give it support at the next election because we, the Opposition, will be back in government. I ask all primary producers in Australia not to give any support to the Labor Party because the Prime Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Capricornia, who is now leaving the House are not interested in primary producers. He is a disgrace to the House. He just made a speech but there was nothing in it. I ask him to stay and listen to the Opposition and hear what it has to contribute. He is not even interested. He is not ever here. The former leader of the Labor Party in the State of Queensland- Mr O'Keefe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Maranoa has just referred to my colleague as the Minister for Capricornia. That is not his correct title although it does recognise his outstanding abilities. I accept that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member would not object to that. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. You are a very good member of this House. I am told that this is the first Bill the passage of which you have presided over in this House. I am sure that all honourable members from both sides of the House will join me in congratulating you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Chairman. We have just heard the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the ex-leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, or at least what is left of it. What faction does the honourable member belong to? I do not know whether he is one of the Horse Creek mob or one of the Breakfast Creek mob; whether he is of the Left or the Right. In Queensland they were already forming another faction at the weekend-probably he will join that one. However, he has been good enough to come back into the House to listen to what the Opposition has to say about the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation Bill. We primary producers in the electorate of Maranoa and those in other parts of Australia do not support a lot of the actions of this Labor Government, especially the fact that it is still levying the export charges on beef cattle at the point of slaughter. We have never supported that concept and on this side of the House we certainly support the amendment that has been moved. The National Party has never supported the concept of levies on beef cattle at the point of slaughter. We believe that costs should be paid out of Consolidated Revenue and we continue to support that concept. The Research and Development Corporation that has been established under this Government is really only a transition from the old Australian Meat Research Committee. The Committee has been incorporated and we support this concept. The objectives of this Bill, to identify the development needs of the livestock and meat industry and to promote and fund appropriate programs, are admirable concepts. They are excellent concepts for the industry. The honourable member for Capricornia suggested that we should spend more money on promotion. If the Labor Government is prepared to help fund that promotion, the industry would be prepared to put more money into it. That is what has happened in the wool industry. The industry has been prepared to put money up on a dollar for dollar basis, and I am sure that the beef industry would be prepared to put more money up provided that the Minister can convince the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that he has money available to put into promotion. There is no doubt that the industry would support more promotion for beef. As I have said, the Research and Development Corporation replaces the existing Australian Meat Research Committee. It will provide commercial flexibility and that is something that is needed in this day of competition, not only here in Australia but also in the rest of the world. We are battling to maintain our markets and unless we are flexible and operate on a commercial basis we will continue to face difficulties. At present the AMRC is spending $12.3m to support these programs; the cattle industry is spending $6.3m on research; the sheep industry $4.1m and $89,000 is being spent on goats. Well, I ask you! Goats have become very important; an awful lot of people are rearing them. I would not spend too much money on some of them in this place but a lot of money is being spent and the goat industry has come to the forefront in the past few years. It has become a very important facet of meat and milk production in Australia. The honourable member for Capricornia has now left the House. I hope you have noted that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that Hansard has noted it. He is not interested in what the Opposition has to say about the beef industry; he has gone. It is disgraceful that he should leave. He was supposed to be the Leader of the Labor Party in Queensland. What a disgrace. Every time that members of the Labor Party go to he polls in Queensland we will outvote them five to one. We will floor them. I am very fortunate in having two members on the Committee from my electorate-Ian Robertson from Albina Downs, Rolleston, as well as David Wright from Wallamumba near Armidale, who also has an interest in a property, Kindon, near Goondiwindi. Both those people serve on the Committee and contribute very greatly. They are the sort of practical, experienced cattlemen that we hope the Minister will reappoint to this Committee when he, hopefully, increases the producer representation on it. That is a little doubtful, but I can assure the Minister that this country's producers are very keen that they should have good strong representation on the new Committee. The research is supported by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation, State agricultural departments, the universities, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, the Cattle Council of Australia, the Queensland Department of Lands and the Livestock and Meat Authority of Queensland. All these bodies are helping to spend the money that is allocated from the producers who finance this Corporation dollar for dollar. The Government also is looking at research into the cattle industry. Postgraduate scholarships are allocated. Last year $150,000 was spent on scholarships. As far as the industry is concerned, it is a very worthy cause, to allocate funds towards helping people graduate and go into the area of research. The total number of scholarships which have been approved since the inception of this scheme in 1962 is now 208, at a value of $2.17m. The other Bills covered by this cognate debate are the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. The Government is very keen that four of the eight members of the Committee be producers and that the producers get good, strong representation. It must be remembered-I hope that the Minister is listening-that seven of the original 13 producers on the old Meat Research Committee were producers. I hope that the Minister will continue to give producers good, strong representation on the new corporations which he is establishing and that he will not have the rows and wrangling that the Government had with the Australian Wheat Board. Some 1,600 producers are already registered to attend the annual meeting in Sydney that will be held under the new rules and regulations of this Corporation. It is good that all producers are able to attend. I wonder what good can come out of it. People will be giving of their time and energies to go to Sydney. It is an opportunity for people in the industry to get together but I always think it is very difficult to make decisions when so many people attend a conference. Usually nothing concrete comes out of it. However, that is the way the Corporation will be run and I wish it success. It will be very interesting to see what will happen when 1,600 beef producers get together. One of the major research projects being carried out is computer selling. This concept has taken off and has been very well established by a number of industry agents. Elders, in particular, have been in the forefront of promoting and developing the computer selling of livestock, in particular, beef. The Queensland Meat Industry Organisation and Marketing Authority is a very powerful, strong and active National Party sponsored authority which is doing a tremendous job in Queensland for the beef industry. We did a lot more than the Australian Labor Party ever did. It never established anything like this. Mrs Sullivan —They did have some government butcher shops. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right; it did have some butcher shops. In the 1920s and 1930s the Labor Party was going to produce all the meat for all the people in Queensland but it went bankrupt and out of business. It was incredible. It had properties around Cunnamulla and Charleville in my electorate of Maranoa. All the cattle starved to death just like the cattle on black fella properties today. They are a bloody hopeless mess, the lot of them-the Aborigines, I should say. These properties stretch across Australia into the electorates of Grey and Leichhardt. All the government sponsored properties operated on government money are a total disaster. None of them work and none of them ever will work. They did not work in the 1920s and they are not likely to work in the 1980s. They are all a disaster. Recently research and development funds have been used to do consumer research in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne into housewives' cooking and eating habits. Tests have been done. Of course the results of this research have not come to fruition. The meat industry has done a lot of research. We are finding there is too much fat on lamb and too much fat on beef. People today who live an active, virile life, people such as the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), are not able to consume too much fat so the amount of fat consumed has to be cut. The University of New England has also been doing a tremendous job with computer assisted livestock marketing. It will conduct the first store cattle sale by computer next week. I mention these things because they highlight how progressive the beef industry is and how it is up front with computer selling, et cetera. There have been meat yield research programs at the University of Queensland's farm and pasture research at Brian pastures in central Queensland. The Belmont research station near Rockhampton is doing research into cross breeding of cattle. At Cannon Hill abattoirs $700,000 is being spent by the CSIRO on bile research. Hopefully, there will be a good market for such research in the domestic medical field. It is expected to benefit asthma, gout and arthritis sufferers. Some of its product might even be sold here. I think the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) probably has gout. He looks as though he could have. He is a bit puffy around the cheeks and I think he is suffering a bit. There is a market for these sorts of products. This is the sort of thing the industry is doing. The AMLC has spent $362,000 experimenting on ways of humanely killing animals. I mention this because of the Animal Liberation Movement. It has a membership of about five people, but it seems to make an awful lot of noise. It has people slotted in the media who give it a big run. Last year over $300,000 was spent at Cannon Hill experimenting on quicker and more humane ways of killing beef cattle. In market research $46,000 has been spent on the packaging of domestic meat. Melbourne University is experimenting on cloning, DNA and genetics in livestock. Of course, all the livestock experiments are the forerunners to human experiments. We have heard a lot lately about genetic advancements, DNA and cloning. Some very interesting-I do not say cloning-human experiments have been carried out which have been a tremendous advantage to many people in that area. It is important that the program of production research be kept in balance. The honourable member for Capricornia, who has left the chamber, suggested that we should spend more money on promotion. I believe that in the beef industry it is essential to keep things in perspective. The industry has been able to rationalise itself without government help. Up to 30 abattoirs in Australia have closed and the industry continues to be viable and strong, although we have seen a tremendous reduction in the number of cattle slaughtered and, of course, in the amount of beef exported. In the animal welfare area the industry has spent over $300,000 experimenting with better husbandry practices in the export of live sheep at the Murdoch University in Western Australia. I mention that fact because the industry is aware that it has to export live sheep in the right way. It is prepared to attempt to do this. It is putting up its money and conducting experiments to see that this is happening. We must not lose those markets to the Middle East. At this stage we cannot afford to lose a market anywhere in the world. I am disgusted at the fact that, my so-called friends on the left, who represent in the House the union people, do not want to export to these countries. It is terrible that they do not accept that wherever we export a product we build up markets at home. In Victoria $300,000 is being spent on improving the transportation and handling of livestock for slaughter. In Queensland $80,000 has been spent in looking at weight loss in the transportation of livestock. That is also a humane operation. The most significant thing that has happened in the last few years is the amount of money being spent on the introduction of the dung beetle. I suggest that it would be a good idea if next time I come back from Maranoa I bring a few dung beetles into this House. Mr Sharp —And put them on the other side. Mr IAN CAMERON —They ought to be released particularly on the Government side. No doubt they would clean up some of those things on that side of the House. The industry has spent $5 million on the introduction of the dung beetle. These beetles have come from Spain and South Africa. They have done a tremendous job in cleaning up dung and in helping to fertilise the soil. They have substantially reduced the blowfly and bushfly populations of, in particular, Maranoa and other inland areas of Australia. I think it is important that we highlight this project because it is not like the cane toad project. The toad has really become a pest. I have dung beetles operating on my property. They are doing a fantastic job in getting rid of dung. I know that this is a little amusing to the House but I can assure honourable members that this project, which is being sponsored by the Corporation, is a great one. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.52) —I wish that there was some way under the Standing Orders to move for an extension of time for the honourable member of Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) because there is very little left to say after what he has brought forward in the House tonight. I think I am one of the final speakers in this cognate debate; so I briefly wish to sum up and place the debate on these Bills into some perspective. The amendment which has been moved by the Opposition is of so little substance that I draw the conclusion that there is consensus on the Bills. That is wonderful to see in the House. In respect of the Bills and the developments in the area of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation, I make the point that I have spent many years living in a small rural community. I have spent years talking with meat and livestock producers on the land and I am aware of the needs of their industry. I can give them an assurance that I am very confident that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and our Government have a clear understanding and a clear direction for the future for this industry. That touches on something that I raised in my maiden speech in this House. I think it has to be kept in perspective that we on this side of the House have inherited in all areas, including the primary sector, a mess that has been built up over 30 years of previous Government. It has taken us one term to address this mess and during the next term we will attempt to re-build what it has taken our opponents on the other side 30 years to mess up. The position in respect of the rural community, and in particular the meat and livestock sector, is that both it and the Government see the need for reform, the introduction of new technology and the introduction of research and development which enables us once again to rebuild our competitiveness in the export sector. In my electorate I have two quite major provincial abattoirs, one servicing a domestic market and the other servicing an export market. At the moment they are considering expansions in their processing. They have the markets and they are looking for the technology that will enable them to expand and compete. This legislation complements the establishment of the Meat and Livestock Corporation. The whole process results from extensive consultation which has taken place with sectors of the industry, the Minister and the Department of Primary Industry. The introduction of this legislation and that which has preceded it is in fact a result of the consultation process. Because the Minister has been prepared to go out there and consult, because he has demonstrated his understanding and knowledge of the rural sector, he has the confidence of the major industry groups and the confidence of the producers. He is a very easy act to follow in the bush because he is known to care and to have this understanding of the rural sector. As a result of the introduction of this legislation we have in fact put in process the second stage of what I would call a two-pronged approach. First of all, we tackled the deficiencies in production, processing and marketing through the establishment of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. We are now turning to the deficiencies within the research and development sector and this Bill will lead to the benefits of which I have spoken. Quite consistently-I reiterate the word 'consistently'-the successes of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation will follow through in the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. Just for the record, I will outline a couple of the key aspects which have already been seen to be major improvements and advances. The most significant, of course, has been the establishment of a corporate board approach, which has brought a commercial orientation, a commercial expertise in areas of marketing, production and processing. That now will be extended to the areas of research and development. The Minister is to be commended-this matter has been touched on during the debate by honourable members on the other side of the House-for the selection process for board members. He has removed the responsibility for selection from the Department of Primary Industry and has established professional panels of people who are skilled in the process of choosing the best people for the job. The corporate boards for both corporations comprise the best people for the job, coming from the production, processing, marketing and government sectors. The principal responsibility of the Research and Development Corporation, as I perceive it, is that it will control the application and disbursement of funds available to research and development in the meat and livestock industry. I draw some heart from the commitment made by the honourable member for Maranoa in his speech just a few minutes ago that the livestock industry, the meat producers, will certainly match government contributions to research and development. If the honourable member had done his homework he would have noted that the Minister made a very clear statement in his second reading speech that the Government is committed to matching the contribution for rural research over the next five years up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. This is a significant commitment by the Minister. I am sure that the meat and livestock industry will be glad that the honourable member for Maranoa took the opportunity to advise honourable members that it will also be hopping into that. That is good to hear. I look to the new Corporation not only to emphasise the benefits of research and the improvements in technology, processing and marketing but also, most importantly, to transfer those benefits of research into the area of development, into actually making it happen in the market-place. I think that the Minister's speech, the Bill and the whole approach of the Government emphasise that we are committed to applying research to applications which will produce those benefits. I would like to pick up the comments that were made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) a little earlier tonight. The honourable member emphasised that he wants to see the benefits of research transferred to the market-place. I can assure him that that is what is going to happen. We on this side of the House are the ones who are making it happen. The rural sector and the meat and livestock industry have been looking for key reforms of the kind that are contained in this legislation. Leadership from the previous Government has been sadly lacking. The previous Administration wandered along, did nothing to improve the industry, propped up the industry and left it without leadership. That is why we are in the situation we are in at the moment. Leadership is being provided by this Government. Another reform covers accountability and consultation. I have touched earlier on the consultative processes used by the Minister. I now turn to the matter of accountability to the industry. Producers and growers are to be consulted through the process of the annual general meeting, something about which the honourable member for Maranoa showed an amazing lack of understanding. Just about every organisation in this land has an annual general meeting. The honourable member does not seem to have attended any of them; that is why he is so totally out of touch with what transpires in the rural sector. The comments of the honourable members are inappropriate because one-third of the 100,000-odd producers in the industry have already registered as shareholders or investors in the Corporation. Over 2,000 of them have already indicated that they intend to attend the annual general meeting. Rather than despairing at having a couple of thousand producers and growers at an annual general meeting, the honourable member ought to commend it. The fact that they attend, are interested and know what is happening will have a tremendous impact on the industry. I commend the annual general meeting provision. I am amazed that the honourable member for Maranoa could have said what he said about it. Another important role of the AGM was pointed out by the Minister in his second reading speech. I refer to its role of accountability to the industry in setting the research and development levy. Those in the industry, through the AGM, will now get an increased say in the setting of the levy. If the Corporation wants to recommend to the Government that the levy be increased, it has to satisfy the producers. That is the way it should be. It has to satisfy the producers and the processors. I commend this process. It is consultation and it is open decision-making, and that is what we need. Another key aspect of the approach by the Minister is the requirement that both corporations are to come up with a strategy for development plans for their industries. The corporate boards will be required to set out for their industries and for the Minister a strategic plan. This will give leadership and direction to production, marketing and processing. Those strategic plans will be based on commercial expertise. As I have said before, they will provide leadership and direction to an industry which was rudderless until we took over. I point to another very important aspect, that of deregulation. The Minister, throughout the whole primary sector, has quite clearly set in process a consistent approach to deregulating the nonsense we inherited. I commend that initiative and I am sure it is welcomed by the rural sector. I conclude by making the point that the meat and livestock industries have an impact not only in their own immediate vicinity but also in the rural and provincial areas which service these industries. The Minister, in setting up his Primary Industry, Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee, has also shown his awareness of the need for the Government to stay in touch with the effects of its legislation and with the impact that the changes in the rural sector have on these provincial and rural centres for which we are responsible. I am confident that the leadership and direction being provided is welcomed by primary producers. I know them; I mix with them; and I know that they like what is happening. I know that those on the other side are bereft of ideas in this area. I welcome the legislation that has been introduced by the Minister. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.05) —I am pleased to be able to support tonight the important reforms in the area of meat and livestock research and development. For a long time, Australia's investment in research and development in many areas has been inadequate, to say the least, especially when the investment made in comparable countries is looked at thoroughly. This matter is of particular interest to me and many of my constituents, given that the Gepps Cross abattoir in South Australia is in the electorate of Makin. However, as well as having meat workers as constituents, I also represent livestock producers in the Houghton and Golden Grove areas. It is pleasing to see that the Government has acted so quickly in response to the recommendations of the working party. The problems which confront this section of the meat industry may now have a chance of being resolved. However, this is not to say that the problems confronting the meat and livestock industry are any closer to resolution at present. I hope that the courage with which the Government has tackled the problems of research and development within the industry will now be translated into action in regard to the problems surrounding the issue of livestock exports, particularly live sheep exports. Live sheep exports have been a particular issue ever since the restrictions were removed. It is unfortunate that to build up an export industry in live sheep another industry, the carcass export trade, had to be damaged severely. I should say that there is a place for a live sheep export industry, particularly when the rural economy is buoyant, when livestock numbers are high and when the capacity of domestic and export licensed abattoirs is extended. If such an industry is to be developed and promoted, it should be done in an orderly and co-ordinated way, as with any other large scale and lucrative industry. This was not the case in the development of the live sheep export industry. Instead, it was promoted in an ad hoc way at the expense of the carcass trade, licensed export abattoirs and thousands of meat workers. It is of little wonder that the complete disregard by sections of the rural industry for the jobs and welfare of Australian meat-workers led to industrial action and the picketing of live sheep terminals by the workers and their union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. Once again, we saw the attitude of conservative sections of our society-put profits above jobs. What particularly upsets me about the development of the live sheep export industry at the expense of the mutton and lamb carcass exports is the dishonesty with which it was done. Instead of developing a co-ordinated approach through negotiations with the exporters of Australian killed meat, these exporters were ignored. Hopefully, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill will enable research and development to ensure that any future changes in the marketing of livestock will be orderly, co-ordinated and thoroughly planned, with the interests of all Australians in mind. If we look at data available concerning the relative performances of the meat and livestock export industries we can see the lie in what has been said by those promoting live sheep exports willy-nilly. For instance, even given an upturn this year, the amount of mutton and lamb exported has fallen drastically over the last five years. On the other hand, there has been a steady growth in the number of live sheep exported in the same period. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate a statistical table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIAN SHEEP MEAT AND LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS Commodity Unit 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85(a) Mutton KT 142.7 186.8 128.0 124.0 58.0 100.0 Lamb KT 48.0 41.0 31.0 34.0 32.0 33.0 Live sheep(b) 000 5,660 5,771 5,996 6,951 7,170 7,400 (a) Estimates by BAE (b) Includes animals for breeding Sources: ABS, BAE, Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy 6 (4) 1984 Mr DUNCAN —The table shows that the amount of mutton exported fell from the 1980-81 peak of 186.8 kilotonnes to a low of only 58 kilotonnes in 1982-83. Incidentally, the projection for this year is 100 kilotonnes. Lamb exports fell from 48 kilotonnes in 1979-80 to only 32 kilotonnes in 1983-84, with a projected increase to 33 kilotonnes expected this year. On the other hand, live sheep exports increased from 5,660,000 in 1979-80 to 7,170,000 in 1983-84, with a projection of 7,400,000 sheep to be exported this year. What we have been told continually over the past few years is that mutton and lamb exports have been hampered by a lack of animals for slaughter as a result of the drought. There is, of course, no reason to suppose that the drought did anything other than damage the position of many farmers and pastoralists in this country. However, during that period the number of animals available for live export did not seem to be affected by such contingencies as the drought. Instead, as the total shows, there has been a steady and quite dramatic growth in the number of sheep available for export-an increase of almost two million sheep or, in percentage terms, a 30.7 per cent increase over the 1979-80 figures. These figures amply demonstrate why we need much greater research and development effort to plan livestock marketing. Given the paucity of figures available when the live sheep trade was being developed, it is little wonder that meat workers were and are angry at the treatment that they have received. They have been asked to stand by and do nothing while the abattoirs close and contracts and thousands of jobs are lost. They are asked to accept that there are not enough sheep to be slaughtered in Australia; yet they have seen a massive increase in the number of sheep available for live export. I note in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) specific mention of both research and development in the title of the proposed new Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. There is a great need for research into the orderly marketing of both live sheep and carcasses. There is a great need for the development of those markets. It is interesting to note that Australia's largest export markets for mutton and lamb and live sheep exports are the Middle Eastern countries. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, there will be increased demand for carcass lamb and live sheep markets, but there is a less encouraging outlook for carcass mutton. One of the reasons we have heard for the need for increased live sheep exports to the Middle Eastern countries has been a religious and cultural one to do with proper slaughtering. If we are to believe the BAE forecasts for lamb exports, which are expected to grow steadily, it could be asked why the same forecast does not apply equally to mutton, which instead must be restricted. Such questions need research. They need answers which hopefully the proposed Corporation will be able to provide. It appears that one of the major reasons for the poor forecast for mutton is the increased competition that mutton exporters should expect from New Zealand. New Zealand's mutton exports are expected to increase in the future while Australia's will fall. Both are expected to increase their lamb exports. What this appears to suggest is that the mad scramble to develop the live sheep export industry was done at the expense of the licensed export abattoirs and the jobs of meat workers. The justifications have come later. While this has been going on, the maintenance of valuable export markets for mutton and lamb carcasses has been ignored to the point where the New Zealand industry has been able to fill a considerable gap. I believe that the jobs of Australians are important and that while the need to develop new export industries may also be important, it should not be done at the expense of existing industries. I also believe that if a new industry is to be developed it should be done honestly after the costs as well as the advantages and disadvantages have been thoroughly researched. The fact that the Government has acted quickly and courageously to address the problems of research and development in the meat and live-stock industry is well taken and should be appreciated by all those in the industry. What we need to do now is to ensure that this determination to confront the problems facing one aspect of the industry is extended to others. In particular, I believe that the issue of the relationship between live sheep exports and the mutton and lamb carcass export industries must be examined and resolved. It is an area of importance to both producers and meat workers. It is particularly important to my constituents who work in the Samcor abattoirs at Gepps Cross and who are livestock producers. I hope that the new Corporation, which, according to its charter is to approve expenditure on research and development projects and across the spectrum from production to consumption, will give early attention to research and development into orderly marketing of and as between meat and live sheep exports. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.13) —In this debate there have been the usual ideological accusations and allegations from the Opposition, regardless of the facts. Sometimes it is helpful to remember that the Australian Labor Party has been in government federally for five years since 1949, and all the problems did not start in March 1983. As a matter of fact, the beef industry had its worst crisis in the mid-1970s. Of course, the Fraser Government did nothing until the then Prime Minister wanted an early election towards the end of 1977. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), asked me to respond to a number of points which he identified as matters of concern to himself and to producers. The first was the matter of consultation, in particular consultation with peak industry councils, by the new Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. There is a general provision in clause 7 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill and a specific provision in clause 10 for this to be done. The Corporation may also meet the expenses of persons with whom it considers it necessary or desirable to consult in this way. The new Corporation is charged with the responsibility of improving the productivity and market performance of the meat and livestock industry. One means of so doing specified in the Bill is the more precise identification of areas of meat and livestock research and development that are more relevant to the needs of the industry. A second specific responsibility of the Corporation is to be more accountable for meat and livestock R and D activities than predecessor organisations. The ultimate accountability of the AMLRDC to the industry will be through the annual general meeting of the industry which it is required to convene. I also fully expect that from time to time the Research and Development Corporation will meet with producer organisations or with special liaison committees set up by those bodies. I would not expect those meetings necessarily to be held on a regular rostered basis. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, N. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J.Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidHoward, J. W. Webster, A. P. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H.Brown, John Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lee, M.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Jacobi, R McGauran, P. J. Darling, E. E.Wilson, I. B. C. Hollis, C.Dobie, J. D. M. Dawkins, J. S.Andrew, J. N. Klugman, R. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.20) —Now that the Opposition has taken 10 minutes of its precious time, I will continue. I also fully expect that from time to time the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation will meet producer organisations or special liaison committees set up by those bodies. I would not expect these meetings necessarily to be held on a regularly rostered basis, nor that the personnel of such liaison groups would be necessarily the same on all occasions. The primary consideration should be the tapping of all possible sources of advice which may assist the Corporation in its critical role for the industry. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir, raised the question of the government member of the new Corporation. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill requires that the government member be a person who the Minister is satisfied has a knowledge of, and experience in, the formulation of government policy and public administration. Certainly, these are not the qualifications and experience required of the other members but people who possess them can be very useful members of statutory authorities, particularly so, I imagine, in the early years. One role of the government member of the Corporation figuratively is to provide the Corporation with a window into government. In practice such members make a contribution to the work of the Corporation and provide a link with the bureaucracy and the quite complex government environment. Contrary to the suggestion of the honourable member for Gwydir, the provisions of the Bill actually reduce the possibility that the member is a 'political plant'. Persons likely to meet the requirement for experience in the formulation of government policy and public administration would normally be senior public servants, who are expected to be politically unbiased. On the other hand, the typical provisions for government representation on existing statutory authorities do not specify any criteria at all. Accordingly, it would not be difficult for any government to make political appointments to such authorities. They are responsible in a corporate fashion, as are other honourable members. We should not talk about patronage! In my portfolio I have to appoint hundreds of people over a term of government. In fact, I was once told that I could appoint up to 700 people over two terms. Actually, I have put onto these boards two people with Australian Labor Party affiliations out of some 300 appointments. I found out about it only after the event. This is not Queensland. This is not the National Party of Australia where patronage the whole time is the name of the game. We are trying to deal with this matter in objective terms. I turn to the annual general meeting. The Deputy Leader of the National Party also expressed concern about the costs which will be incurred by the Corporation in holding annual general meetings, at which members of the meat and livestock industry will review the Corporation's operations and financial requirements. He commented that a similar meeting to be held by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation on 10 May would probably cost more than $200,000. I understand that the AMLC had budgeted for an amount of slightly under $200,000 to cover the cost of its first AGM. However, about a third of that amount represents the cost of establishing the registers of eligible participants which is, of course, not a recurrent expense but an establishment cost. Since both corporations will use the same registers and share the cost of maintaining them, this will reduce costs to each in future years. Further savings are likely because, wherever possible, the two corporations will hold their AGMs either on the same day or on succeeding days. A provision requiring the Research and Development Corporation to strive for such synchronisation is included in the Bill. It is expected that eventually the cost of staging the two AGMs will be around the amount budgeted for the first AGM convened by the AMLC. Of this some two-thirds will be the cost of printing and posting the annual reports. I turn to what other honourable members had to say. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) asked whether it was my intention to appoint livestock producers to at least half the positions on the Research and Development Corporation Board. Of course, she fundamentally missed the point behind the Government's philosophy. We are trying to get boards that act corporately. No, it is not my intention to do so. Honourable members surely recall that eight of the members of the Board are being selected by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee. This Committee comprises three livestock producers and three meat processor exporters. This Selection Committee is required to appoint members who have expertise related to, for instance, livestock production. Given the statutory requirements for certain expertise to be represented on the Board and that the Selection Committee comprises industry representatives, I am sure that honourable members can be confident that the Board will contain people familiar with livestock production. The honourable member also referred to the five-year strategic research plan and the annual operational plan giving the Minister enormous powers as both plans require ministerial approval. This is again nonsensical because I remind honourable members that under existing arrangements with the Australian Meat Research Committee, allocation of funds by that Committee requires ministerial approval for each and every research project. The honourable member for Moncrieff should be relieved that this specific requirement for ministerial approval will not apply to the Research and Development Corporation. Rather, for the Corporation, ministerial and industry scrutiny will focus on the broad policies and operational plans proposed by the Corporation. I submit that this is not only a more effective accountability mechanism, but one which distances the Minister from day to day operations of a corporation responsible for significant expenditure for this multi-million dollar industry. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) indicated that he hoped the level of expenditure for research and development for the livestock and meat industries increases over time. Mr Hunt —He is stupid, too? Mr KERIN —No, he is not stupid, he is echoing hope, unlike the other honourable members who spoke. I remind honourable members again of the recent decision of the Government to set as an objective, to be achieved over five years, a level of expenditure up to 0.5 per cent of gross value of production. In the case of the livestock and meat industries, the Government has thus signalled that it is prepared to support, through its matching funding arrangements with the industry, a doubling of expenditure on research and development. The honourable member for Wannon also asserted that the requirement for no confidence motions to be supported by 75 per cent of both producers and processors eligible to vote was impossible to achieve. The 75 per cent majority has been stipulated for such motions, and negotiated with the industry over a long time, as a safeguard against a situation where a poorly attended annual general meeting could remove a carefully chosen chairman or board. We know now that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) knows a lot about dung. He throws a lot, and we all know that he has dung beetles. I do not know why the honourable member for Maranoa repeats things which he knows are not true-again he gave us his usual racist rant. I will go through some of the points he made. He said that we have cut our sales of beef to Japan. We have increased our sales of beef to Japan in tonnage terms. The great drop in percentage terms was caused by the previous Government during the Strauss-Ushiba round when diaphragm beef was put outside the quota and thereby the percentage share dropped against us, but rose in favour of the United States. The honourable member expressed quite a bit of ignorance on quite a range of measures. The fact that the United States gouged some 6.9 thousand tonnes out of the available market is related to three very powerful facts: The enormous trade imbalance between the United States and Japan, estimated to be between $23 billion and $30 billion; the fact that it is an election year; and the unstated fact that Japan enjoys the nuclear umbrella of the United States. I would also point out that the United States is still the best bet for Australia to gain trade liberalisation in that market. I will not speak at length on other markets, but Canada is now our third biggest market. The European Economic Community has engaged in predatory practices on this market in restituting beef out of intervention stocks. In 1981 it supplied 1.2 thousand tonnes; in 1984, 21.2 thousand tonnes- Mr Hunt —How much? Mr KERIN —In 1984 the figure was 21.2 thousand tonnes. The EEC came in so hard that the Canadians invoked their meat import low, set a quota allocation globally of 66.5 thousand tonnes, and out of that allocated Australia 24.9 thousand tonnes, which was fair given our export performance; 9.8 thousand tonnes to the United States of America; 29.1 thousand tonnes mainly to New Zealand; and 2.7 thousand tonnes, on the basis of our performance, to the EEC. The EEC tried to blackmail Canada with $50m worth of trade retaliations, and the issue has not been settled. At the same time, I was in Canada putting our case on this and I noticed a cable indicating that a Mr Martre from Aerospatiale was in Australia trying to involve us in buying French helicopters. I would like to say that this is one Cabinet member who will not be looking at that too happily. The Government rejects the amendment which the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia moved to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill. Neither the amendment nor the reasons advanced for it will bear scrutiny, as I shall demonstrate. Since coming to office the Government has reaffirmed the previous Government's policy of 50 per cent recovery of inspection costs from industry. As its first task the newly formed Interim Inspection Policy Council in early 1984 was asked to examine the impact on industry's viability and competitiveness of 50 per cent cost recovery for meat inspection. On receipt of the IIPC report the Government acted on 1 July 1984 to reduce the charge by 20 per cent in line with recommendations to exclude certain costs from industry charges. We also accepted the recommendation for a split charging system to address the problem of a drift of product from export works to domestic works. The split charge was implemented on 1 December 1984. Negotiations with the States have resulted in Queensland and Victoria in late 1984 dropping their charges on the domestic component of the export charge kill and New South Wales did so in 1983. The Government is continuing to trim the inspection force. In late 1984, 55 inspectors were voluntarily retired. The service was reduced by 120 inspectors in 1984. There is constant reference to other countries. We have just carried out a survey of the key 21 countries, and 17 currently impose inspection charges. Almost all European Economic Community countries, including Ireland and Denmark, have charges ranging from 50 per cent to 100 per cent cost recovery. South American competitors-including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay-have substantial charges. New Zealand will impose charges for a one-third cost recovery from 1 October 1985, moving to a two-thirds recovery in 1986. United States of America budget proposals are for a 100 per cent cost recovery over three years. The United States currently recovers costs for overtime, travel, grading and additional inspection over and above domestic requirements for exports. The Government rejects the amendment and supports the Bills. Amendment negatived. Original 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 March, on motion from Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.43) —I speak in this House tonight to outline a problem which has been experienced by physiotherapists in my electorate for a considerable period. Governments are often the last to meet their financial commitments, and particularly so when it comes to paying for services provided by the private professions. My colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) last week in this place outlined very eloquently difficulties being experienced by dispensing chemists in obtaining the prompt payment of pharmaceutical benefits. While that situation is disgraceful, the plight of physiotherapists has been much worse. It is a complete and utter scandal of the first order. The Department of Veterans' Affairs imposes a reduced scale on physiotherapists. They either do work at the Department's cut rate or not at all. Consequently the Government should make payments promptly because it would help to dispel the commonly held perception that this Hawke socialist regime is utterly insolvent. In addition, professionals should not be placed in the position of giving compulsory interest-free loans to a government which has absolutely no sympathy for small business. Everyone in this House will be outraged by the predicament confronting physiotherapists in Queensland. I was shocked to hear that one constituent was owed $1,900 for up to five months. How on earth anyone is expected to remain in business while having considerable amounts of money outstanding for this period is quite beyond me. Mr Miles —It is an outrage. Mr SLIPPER —It is an outrage, indeed. If the Department was a private individual then bankruptcy proceedings would have been issued. Combing through details, I was notified that one account was outstanding from 18 September 1984 through to 5 January 1985, a period of 109 days. Another case is even more disturbing. The money was outstanding from 28 August 1984 to 21 December 1984, a period of 115 days. Quite frankly, the situation has been, to say the least, pathetic. The sad and sorry story does not stop there. Physiotherapists have been held to financial ransom throughout the length and breadth of Australia by this socialist Administration-the granny bashers, as they were so aptly called by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), referring to the assets test and the savage penalties imposed on senior citizens simply for the crime of growing old. Not satisfied with attacking our retired folk, the Government has the financial security of our hard-working physiotherapists as its next target. Believe it or not, in another instance cited to me over $5,000 has been owed to another physiotherapist for many months. Honourable members opposite should hang their heads in shame. I have been told that the Department is developing an automated system to replace the manual processing of accounts and that it should be partly operational in the first part of 1985 and fully operational within 12 months. That is a positive step in the right direction, but it really is too little too late. Only time will tell whether the Department's proposals will improve the situation on a permanent basis. I am also pleased that in recent days some outstanding fees have been paid, but greatly disturbed over the fact that payments are still two months in arrears. The question raised in my mind is whether the delays being experienced by physiotherapists and pharmacists, and no doubt others, are part of a concerted ideological campaign by this Government against the private sector in general and the private professions in particular. This is yet another instance why the people of Australia should and will at the next election consign the Hawke socialist Government to the political scrapyard where, of course, it will discover its discredited predecessor, the Whitlam disaster. This Government loves to spend, spend, spend. It has indulged this addiction more than any other government in Australia's history. It spent almost $7 billion more than it earned last year. Perhaps an organisation to be known as Spenders Anonymous-I make no reflection on the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender)-could be set up to provide this Government with much needed treatment. If the size of government were cut, if the bureaucracy and red tape were trimmed, if the Federal Government got out of areas of traditional State responsibility and if excessive dictatorial regulations were done away with, not only would the deficit be reduced but also people such as my constituents-honest, hard-working physiotherapists-would be able to receive their due payment for work done and no longer be manipulated by the Hawke socialist Government. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.47) —Tonight I raise a matter of particular concern to me and that is the position of single parents in our community. As some members of the House may be aware, a group of women from an organisation called the Council for the Single Mother and Her Child have been in Canberra for the last two days to try to get through to the people in this place and, in particular, the people who will be making the decisions in respect of their future income levels, just how desperate their situation is. I put on record my support for these women and the women and children whom they represent. Sole parents are no longer a minority group in our community. In June 1984 some 252,000 sole parents were receiving income support, representing some 9 per cent of the social security pensioners and beneficiaries. Of these, 94 1/2 per cent were female. The evidence is clear that substantial numbers of sole parents and their children are among the most disadvantaged people in our society. They represent a high proportion of users of emergency relief. The current total pension for a single parent with one child is $115.90 a week-it will be $118.30 from May 1985-plus up to $15 a week if eligible for supplementary assistance and $5.25 a week in family allowances. Despite a 40 per cent increase in rates in the past two Labor Budgets, current rates of additional pension for children are still well below their 1976 real levels, resulting in a redistribution of income away from the poorest families with children. The mother's and guardian's allowance is the one payment targeted only at sole parents. Despite a 25 per cent increase of $10 a week in the last Budget, this allowance has declined by 21 per cent relative to inflation since June 1976 and by 27 per cent relative to average weekly earning movements. These declines can be reserved only by providing further real ad hoc increases. The Institute for Family Studies has estimated that it costs $21.20 to provide for the basic needs of a five-year-old child from a low income group. The equivalent rates for an eight-year-old and an 11-year-old are $26.14 and $27.90 respectively. These costs do not include items such as housing, childcare transport, dental and medical costs and school costs. If a supporting parent attempts to gain additional income for herself and her children she is severely penalised by a means test which reduces the amount of non-pension income earned by 50 per cent for every dollar earned over and above $30, plus $6 for each child. This allowable income level has risen only $10 in the past 11 years, while the allowable income per child has not increased at all from $6. The combination of benefit withdrawal and taxation on earnings results in an effective marginal tax rate of 62.5 per cent on a total weekly income of $195, a higher marginal rate than that for most of the wealthy people in our community. This severely limits the viability of part benefit-part earnings income for supporting parents benefit recipients. As a consequence, many women in this predicament are being forced into the underground economy where they are open to extreme exploitation. Even worse, many are being forced to give up their children. I would like to read to the House part of a statement delivered by one of these women who was in Canberra today because I think it expresses much more forcefully than I could ever do the position which these women face. I quote: It is with regret that I must inform you that due to financial and emotional stress I like many women in similar circumstances have had to make a very painful and traumatic decision affecting my three youngest children and myself as I feel I can no longer cope with watching my children go without food, clothing and opportunities that other children take for granted. No mother can be expected to feed, clothe and educate a child on $14 per week. I cannot wait for the war on poverty as I and my two youngest children have been left on the battle field too long and the cavalry will arrive too late to save us. I have decided in the best interests of my two children, Joanna, aged 13 years, and Nick, aged 11 years, to place them in the care of two families. That woman's being forced to give up her children in this country in 1985 is a gross indictment of our society. I hope that some of us in this House are in a position to prevent this situation continuing. I would like to refer to the Press comments attributed today to a leading spokesman of our Party and place on record my total rejection of the views of the Minister as expressed in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial and the Daily News. I will be one member of this Government who will continue to fight for the poor in this country, despite his remarks today. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.52) —Tonight I take this opportunity to raise the matter of the zonal charging policies of Telecom Australia, particularly as they relate to my electorate of Flinders. I note that it is a matter of major concern to hundreds of thousands of Australians living in the outer metropolitan areas of our capital and provincial cities. It is instructive to note the recent political history of this issue. We can go back to March 1983, at the height of the then Federal election campaign, when we saw the Australian Labor Party pull a favourite political stunt. The stunt was to forward a telegram to the electorate of Flinders and, of course, pass it around as advertising material. I will quote from the telegram in part. It has been signed by Bob Hawke and is addressed to the ALP candidate. It states: I particularly share your concern at the financial hardship this can cause- referring to high telephones charges- to pensioners and those on fixed incomes for whom in many cases a telephone is essential. You have my assurance that this classification will be subject to urgent review by the new Minister after March 5th . . . That was one of the very few promises the Hawke Labor Government managed to keep. It did hold an inquiry. An inquiry was conducted by Telecom and it reported to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Telecom, as is its wont, was totally opposed to the provision of any relief to the constituents of my electorate and other people around this country. As a result of the pressure brought to bear on the Government, there was a parliamentary committee inquiry into the matter of Telecom's policies. The report 'Ringing in the Changes' was prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and was tabled last October. It is interesting to note that Telecom made a major submission to the inquiry. It was again, as it was a few months earlier, totally opposed to any relief. The report favours relief, and it is to be welcomed for that reason. So far, so good. We now have a report which recommends relief and which gives due recognition to the very considerable hardship that high telephone charges place on people throughout the country. That was in October 1984. This week the Minister has informed the House that the report has been considered by the Government and that the Government has sent the report back to Telecom. Telecom has been at this issue twice already and on two occasions it has said no. I ask honourable members: What is the point of sending it back to Telecom? The unfortunate response may well be that this matter has been put on the back burner. Honourable members opposite won the election back in December. They are back in government and now have an opportunity to do something about this issue. It is not a difficult issue at all. It is not like the MX missile, capital gains tax, death duties or the tax summit on which they have to do deals with their mates in the factions, with all the factional fighting that has been going on; this issue is quite clear. When the report was tabled a Government member-I quote from the Age-said that the report: highlighted the inadequate response by Telecom to population growth in the 1960s. There are no worries about this question; there is bipartisan support. There is a pricing policy in Telecom which rests on boundaries which were introduced in 1960 and which are now out of date. Telecom's zonal pricing policy is causing hardship to thousands of Australians, to pensioners, small business people, the tourist industry and those on fixed incomes, including of course the elderly who are already suffering from the attack of the Labor Party in respect of the assets test. Honourable members on the other side of the House will not be able to do anything about this issue after the next election because they will be out of office. The Government should take this opportunity to do something. Let us see some real relief from high telephone charges for the people of Australia. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(10.57) —Tonight I draw to the attention of the House the flagrant disregard by the Queensland Premier and his National Party Government-those silent faceless men-of the liberty and rights of workers and citizens of Queensland. I condemn the Premier on three counts: His total disregard for the fundamental rights of the people of Queensland; his scandalous abuse of the institution of Parliament, forcing legislation through the House and gagging all debate on it; and his mismanagement of the Queensland economy, which now leaves Queensland as one of the poorest States in Australia-probably the poorest. As Treasurer and Premier he must accept responsibility for this. The State Government's actions over the past weeks of passing legislation without allowing reasonable time for parliamentary debate, let alone debate by the general public, and any criticism of it, indicate its absolute contempt for the people of Queensland and the Queensland Parliament, which should be the symbol of democracy in that State. The Premier's mishandling of the power dispute has created much ill-feeling in the community. His present intention to crush the free trade union movement is a regressive and very dangerous action for the people of Queensland. The fundamental rights of workers and their personal liberties are being taken away from them without any opportunity for them even to raise their voices in protest about it. The Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act-and its amendment-is a hastily thought out piece of legislation, designed to force workers to forgo basic rights in order simply to earn a living. The introduction of the most recent laws concerning the power to arrest without warrant is a further indication of the move towards a police state in Queensland, and that is the situation this National Party Premier would have all of the people of Queensland live in. These new laws will have far greater and more far-reaching effects than the Queensland Government would have us believe. As has happened so often in history, people do not realise that their liberty is being threatened or restricted until the point is reached where their liberty has been destroyed and lost forever. While it may be difficult for the average Australian not living in Queensland to believe that any serious threat to the liberty of any of his fellow Australians could eventuate in this country, where we like to believe we are living in a free country, I say that quite clearly it is happening within Australia-and it is happening in Queensland. I take this opportunity to tell the people of Australia that, tragically, the liberty of their fellow Australians living in Queensland has not only been threatened but has already been eroded. Without strong action to stop this maniac masquerading as a Premier in Queensland, soon the liberty of the people of Queensland will be totally destroyed. The Premier and Treasurer, by carrying out his personal vendetta against the unions, hopes to draw attention away from the sad state of the Queensland economy. Despite his blustering- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 April 1985, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40 as amended for this session. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 March 1985: Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 30. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 29. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations-1985-No. 8 (Co-operative Societies Ordinance). Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 31.