Wednesday, 8 May 1985 Madam ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985 concurrently with the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.01) —The main purpose of the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985, the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection Legislation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 is to draw together under one piece of legislation a total of 10 export inspection Acts relating to dairy, dried fruit, egg, fish and grain products. The existing separate pieces of export inspection charges legislation will remain in force until such time as the consolidating legislation is proclaimed. Therefore, even if the Opposition parties moved successfully to block this legislation it would not remove the export inspection charges. The main users of agricultural export inspection services are the meat industries, which will continue to be covered by separate legislation. These Bills do not alter current charges for inspection services, although the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has revealed that new rates will apply from October this year. Agricultural exports earned $4.2 billion in 1975-76, but by 1983-84 were earning $8 billion per annum. These inspection services have been an important factor in ensuring the export of quality products and in maintaining the growth of our rural exports. The rural industries are particularly significant to our foreign exchange earning capacity as their exports earn $8 for every $1 farmers expend on imported goods. That is a beneficial ratio of 8:1. Those industries covered by this legislation are vital contributors to this export income, having earned more than $3.5 billion in 1983-84. These Bills are designed to set inspection services for each of the five respective industries on a common footing. In presenting this legislation, the Minister has noted that export inspection is progressively moving to a system under which the intensity of the inspection processes is varied according to the records of individual firms. This should result in a more efficient use of resources. One hopes that it will. The Liberal and National parties will monitor the results of these trials. It is essential to provide cost efficient inspection services which do not lessen the ability of our industries to compete on overseas markets. I say that particularly in view of the fact that the Government has loaded on to the shoulders of the export industries 50 per cent of the export inspection charges for those services. Of course, not all our competing nations are imposing that charge upon our exporters, but it does add to the further difficulty of so many of our industries in achieving competitiveness with other nations. Mr Wright —It was a Liberal-National Party policy. Mr HUNT —I will tell the honourable member what our policy is right now if he will just be patient and listen. The Liberal and National parties are concerned that export inspection charges are unduly weighing down the vital primary export industries which represent the main source of our national export income. On several occasions, increases were deferred by our parties and the Australian Democrats where it was anticipated that the export performance of these industries would be harmed. Very few, if any, of our competing nations apply such charges; therefore, the Australian cost recovery policy in regard to export inspection charges is further adversely affecting our competitiveness. Not only are this inflexible wage system and the highest on-costs in the world reducing our competitiveness on export markets but also inspection charges, with increases of up to 1,000 per cent for some industries since the Hawke Government came to office, have been not just disastrous but irresponsible as well. Therefore, last year the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, announced that export inspection charges should be met by the Commonwealth Government. The coalition stated: A coalition Government will . . . ensure that a high standard export inspection service is maintained where circumstances of trade require that certification by the Commonwealth be provided. The Commonwealth will co-operate with industry bodies and the States concerned to ensure that the inspection is efficiently conducted without duplication and at the Commonwealth's expense. This point is made very clear in the coalition's policy on primary industry released last year. So, let there be no doubt in anybody's mind where we stand in regard to export inspection charges. Mr Wright —You can't get away from the fact that you could have done that here four years ago. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will cease interjecting. Mr Wright —I am just trying to put him straight on the matter, Madam Acting Speaker. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the matter with the Chair; he will cease interjecting. Mr HUNT —The fact of the matter is that this Hawke Labor Government, of which the honourable member interjecting is a member, has been responsible for increases of up to 1,000 per cent in inspection charges. Mr Braithwaite —How much? Mr HUNT —Up to 1,000 per cent; that was for the oyster industry. There has been a 200 per cent increase in beef industry inspection charges. If anybody says that that is a fair go, God help us, he has a distorted, warped view of what is fair and just. We have made very clear where we stand. I hope that in the Hawke Government's review of policy, which surely it will undertake at some stage, it too will see the stupidity of imposing charges on export industries when competing nations are not doing the same thing. The main Bill before the House, the inspection charges Bill, allows each product to be divided into classes according to type of packing, the form in which the commodity is exported and the inspection system applicable in its manufacture. This will facilitate the transfer of some inspection resources away from products or manufacturers with a good track record into other areas which are more problem prone. I share the Minister's hope that this will improve the cost efficiency of inspection services. The Bill also introduces charges for the inspection of canned and processed fruit and vegetables. Similar legislation presented last year was deferred pending reports from the Interim Inspection Policy Council and the Department of Primary Industry. The Minister in his second reading speech specified that the charges will be set at 0.5 cents per kilogram or per litre. Clause 7 (3) of the Bill sets a maximum fee of twice this amount-one cent per litre or kilogram. The 0.5 cents fee will raise an additional $330,000 a year to fund the fruit and vegetable inspection services. Any increase in these charges will further retard the competitiveness and development of these export industries. For example, producers of canned and frozen vegetables are finding there are only very limited openings on foreign markets. Additional increases in inspection fees would serve only to weaken export industries' capacity to maximise their export potential. Canned and frozen vegetables are already subject to strict quality controls on the domestic market. The major purpose of export inspections would be to ensure that the various product grades required by importing nations are properly met. There is therefore no justification for the imposition of heavy inspection charges on this manufacturing industry. Ideally, the performance of these exporters would be served by a decision to drop these charges altogether. Certainly, there will be no justification for increases over the next few years in the charges set by this Bill. The canned fruit industry is among those concerned about the provisions of this Bill. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) well knows-he brought this matter to my attention on behalf of the industry in his electorate-the industry is concerned. It has been under a lot of pressure for some time on international markets. It has been in touch with him and me as it is very concerned about the consequences of now having to bear export inspection charges when it in fact meets some of the highest health regulations in the world to serve domestic requirements. Processed fruit and vegetable preparations have justifiably earned a reputation for high quality on the world market, and the suppliers are well aware that their $60m earnings per annum depend on that reputation being maintained. I welcome the Minister's statement that a system of inspection involving less intensive monitoring of product, premises and processing operations will shortly begin field trialling. The canning fruit industry has participated on export markets for 60 years unencumbered by inspection charges, and every effort must be made to minimise the effects of the new charge imposed by this legislation. However, I note that it is more than 12 months ago that discussions were held in Canberra between the canning fruit industry and members of the Export Inspection Service. Concern has been expressed to me that although it was agreed at these talks that the canned fruit industry should move quickly towards a system of ad hoc inspections which would see the elimination of inspectors fully employed throughout the processing season, we have reached the stage of only talking about field trialling. Every effort should be made to conduct these field trials as soon as possible so that the burden of the new inspection charges can be reduced. The remaining two Bills, Madam Acting Speaker, the Export Inspection Charge Collection and the Export Inspection (Consequential Amendments) Bills, also formalise the consolidation of the present 10 Acts. The collection Bill sets a limit of 28 days for payment, after which time the issue of further permits will be suspended until the payment has been made. Penalties for a range of offences relating to the keeping of records, failure to lodge returns or unauthorised interference with inspection procedures are set at a maximum $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment, or both. While the Opposition does not oppose these Bills, I draw attention to other unnecessary and harmful changes made to the export inspection services by the Hawke Labor Government. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that excessive increases in export inspection charges over the past 2 years have seriously damaged the export competitiveness of Australian agricultural industries in a period of intense world competition against other nations which do not impose these export cost burdens'. It is commonly known that the meat producers and other large-scale exporters have been subjected to a cost increase for inspection charges, as I said a moment ago, of 200 per cent and more in two years. The meat industry is a notable case. What is less commonly known is that some smaller industries have been slugged even harder. I referred a moment ago-and I repeat it-to the fact that I was contacted by the oyster growers seeking advice about what could be done about the 1,000 per cent increase in their inspection fees under the Labor Government. The increases have been justified by this Government on the basis of a 50 per cent cost recovery. Budget figures show that collections, including recovery of overdue payments from 1983-84, will represent 76 per cent of outlays. So instead of its being a 50 per cent cost recovery it is now apparent that it will be a 76 per cent cost recovery, unless the Budget Papers are wrong. I would like the Minister to answer that. It is all very well to say that there is a 50 per cent cost recovery; the Budget Papers show that there will end up being a 76 per cent cost recovery. How are we to ascertain whether we do not have too many people out in the field doing these sorts of inspections? How are we to know whether those people, engaged through the Public Service or the bureaucracy, are achieving the levels of productivity that these export industries are expected to achieve in order to maintain their export and world markets? This is the sort of situation that needs the closest monitoring whilever the Government imposes this sort of cost recovery arrangement on the producers, many of whom are battling to make just enough to buy the household food. So many farmers in the Australian community today earn only a quarter of average weekly earnings, or less. The average income of farmers in this country is $7,000. So let nobody get any ideas in his head that the farmers are the wealthy members of this community, because they are not. They are becoming the new poor in the Australian community. Ours will be a very poor society if this situation continues. There is no doubt that the agricultural sector, spread right across this vast continent, with very scattered populations-the rural hinterland of Australia-has been producing much of the wealth that is necessary to keep public servants in jobs, politicians paid and the services of this country going. Mr Braithwaite —And the Government hates them. Mr HUNT —The Government seems to hate them. I ask: Why does it hate the farmers? The real difficulty for the primary export industries lies with the impact-- Mr Young —What about the shearers? Mr HUNT —I do not hate the shearers. I was a shearer myself once. Shearers are one sector of the community who really have to do something-they have to push the shorn sheep down the chute-to get their money. They are really genuine blokes. That is why the honourable member for Port Adelaide has his better moments; he has been in a good industry. The real difficulty for the primary export industries lies with the impact of Labor's sharp cost increases on our competitiveness. Inspection charges are virtually non-existent among our overseas competitors, although the Minister informs us that some either are about to implement or are implementing such charges on their exporters. I am interested in learning more about the suggested intentions of these competing nations. The massive cost hikes of the past two years have come on top of a devastating, four-year drought. A very big percentage of eastern Australia is now facing another crippling drought. Apart from the coastal belt and the inland of Queensland-- Mr Braithwaite —And Richmond. Mr HUNT —Apart from those areas, including Richmond, a very substantial sector of western and central western New South Wales and Victoria is now experiencing what has been one of the most frightening autumn deficiencies in rainfall for many years. So many places have had the lowest rainfalls on record between the end of October and the end of April. So let it be a warning. The big drought problem has not gone away. If it continues it will augur badly for the economy. By increasing inspection charges by 200 per cent in the initial post-drought recovery phase, the Government has displayed a lack of sensitivity to the cost-price squeeze that is grabbing the jugular veins of our farm industries. Mr Braithwaite —It has just increased the fuel costs. Mr HUNT —Yes, it has. It had a great opportunity. Mr Wright —Don't you talk about fuel costs. There was a 30 per cent increase under Fraser. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. I understand he is taking part in the debate later. Mr Wright —No, I am not. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —He will stop interjecting now. He is straining the patience of the Chair quite a bit. Mr HUNT —I think we ought to have a debate on fuel costs, because they are affecting every Australian. The Hawke Labor Government promised before it came to office that there would be a 3c per litre cut in the price of fuel. What has happened? We have seen excises increased by 56.6 per cent and fuel prices increased by 32.5 per cent. This recent increase is due to the devaluation of the depreciating currency which has come about because of the lack of confidence in the Hawke economic policies. The Government had its chance to reduce fuel prices by reducing the excise, but it chose not to. It has pocketed $670m at the expense of every Australian motorist, at the expense of the farmers, at the expense of industry and at the expense of jobs-wait and see. Mr Braithwaite —Mick Young has fleeced them again. Mr HUNT —I do not think Mick Young would do that. There are other more evil characters around who would, but Mick Young is not a bad bloke. Needless to say, there is an ugly mood welling up throughout rural Australia. As the Minister for Primary Industry knows, the farmers are getting angry. As they used to say in another age, the peasants are revolting. I think people need to be well aware of the mood that exists out there, because they are getting worried. Many farmers have been out there battling, not just for one generation but for two or three generations. They are having great difficulty in encouraging their young people to go back into the country because the young people are now starting to question whether anybody really cares. That augurs badly for the economic, social and demographic structure of this nation. It is very important for people in all political parties, wherever they might live-particularly those who live in Melbourne or Sydney, the big cities-to understand the enormous pressures being imposed on those people battling to make a living from the soil. Before the election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a point of listening to the concerns of the $11 billion farming community. He said: 'Yes, I can see the effects of rising costs, particularly government charges. We really do need to take some firm action. How about a summit?' We had so many summits at one stage that one had a job to find him; he was running behind a summit on practically every issue. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, he ran out of mountain tops. The announcement on new dairy marketing arrangements has shown that Labor's hearing is spot on before an election but is decidedly deaf after polling day. The farm costs summit turned out to be an utter farce. The Government side-stepped the areas where it could give immediate relief, such as reducing fuel excise, removing inspection charges, removing the tariff on grain harvesters and abandoning the assets test for the bona fide, poor, aged farmers who are apparently capital rich but cash poor. I mention grain harvesters, because if ever there were an iniquitous situation, this is it. There is a 15 per cent tariff imposed on headers, costing the farmers $14m, to protect 260 jobs in a marginal seat on the outskirts of Melbourne. The same objective could have been achieved with a $2m bounty. But no, the greed of the Treasury and those who are collecting revenue dictated the other course. They decided to take it out of the pockets of the farmers, some $14m or $15m to save 260 jobs. I am not against saving jobs-we should be trying to save jobs-but I am very much against that way of achieving it because it falls heavily upon a small section of the Australian community. Mr Braithwaite —And devaluation has added to those costs. Mr HUNT —Yes, indeed. The primary producers of this nation have been treated with contempt. Clearly the National Farmers Federation has been given the big A by the Prime Minister and his Ministers at the second summit conference on farm costs. In introducing a massive increase in export inspection charges, the Hawke Labor Government has badly underestimated the tolerance of farmers and overstated their ability to meet such government charges. The attitudes of honourable members opposite had better change pretty quickly. The abolition of these excessive inspection charges would be one fledgling step in the right direction for this Government. Not only would the rural sector be given one means of showing the cost-price dive, but all Australians would benefit. Rural exports account for 35 to 50 per cent of Australia's total export income. World markets have rarely been more competitive, yet our farmers have to carry a heavy export tax that is virtually unknown outside this country. Our foreign debt is escalating towards the $60 billion mark, yet we slap on these heavy increases in the costs of production which are weighing our industries down in the international competitive stakes. Even the complete abolition of export inspection charges would be only one small salvo in the cost-price battle, but it would be a start and an indication of the Government's sincere concern for the problems of the farmers and their families. In February the Bureau of Agricultural Economics forecast an acceleration of the decline in the terms of trade from 2.4 per cent per annum to 4 per cent this financial year. Since then, the 22 per cent devaluation has helped the statistics but has not improved the long term farm outlook. Increased export earnings flowing from the devaluation have cut the decline in terms of trade back to 2 per cent in the short term. But this is only temporary because with devaluation of that magnitude the input costs and the costs of imported goods will rise, and fuel is a great example of this. In the financial year 1985-86 most of those engaged in farm industries can expect that their input costs will be much higher. This will make their task of maintaining present markets and obtaining new ones even greater. By the start of the 1985-86 financial year the higher farm input costs, combined with a 10 per cent increase in petrol prices, will cause the situation to further deteriorate. That does not take account of the indexation of excise to the consumer price index. That is a tricky little one. A piece of legislation has gone through both Houses to ensure that every time the CPI goes up the revenue to the Government will go up. Mr McArthur —It was $25m last year. Mr HUNT —Twenty-five million dollars! That was just ripped off. As a result of the devaluation and the introduction of a broad-based tax, we will see a big increase in inflation and another big increase in the price of fuel. I do not think people will be able to afford cars before long. It is getting that way now. I saw an economic analysis which showed that it is costing a person $118 a week to drive a Ford Falcon. That is based on the use of a full tank of petrol. That is what it costs to own a car today with registration, insurance, repayments to the hire purchase company, maintenance and depreciation. For a small car such as a Honda Civic, which my daughter drives-she cannot afford it but she still drives the thing-it costs about $87 a week. I do not think kids can afford cars without doing themselves enormous damage. Every time the price of petrol goes up, the more difficult it is for them to own a car. I hope the knackeries will not go on killing horses because the kids may have to get on Shanks's pony or a good pony before long. In view of the huge increases in the cost of inspection services, the failure of the Government to take any meaningful action at its farm costs summit and its failure to stave off cost increases from the devaluation of the dollar, the Liberal and National parties call for the immediate abolition of inspection charges on rural exports as a step towards recovering some of the ground we have lost in our international economic standing. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hawker —Yes, Madam Acting Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.31) —In supporting the Export Inspection Charge Bill and cognate Bills, it is important to get on record immediately that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who has just concluded his speech, was part of a government that was notable for its economic mismanagement. I am amazed that he can come into this place and almost reduce us to tears by telling us how tough things are and that, really, members of the Opposition are the people who can manage an economy effectively and that they are the people who know all about economic management. Their record was pretty shoddy. In fact, the public recognises that they were guilty of economic vandalism the likes of which we had not seen since the Great Depression. I note that the honourable member for Gwydir, in his closing remarks, spoke about knackeries and the killing of horses. Another thing we have to remember is that it was under the previous Government, of which he was a member, that horse meat found its way into export meat, and it was under that Government that kangaroo meat found its way into export meat. If I were a member of an Opposition party I would not go too far into the meat export area because the Liberal-National Party record was pretty rough. So I advise Opposition members to stay out of it. Why is it that when I went to Japan the Japanese asked me whether or not Australian steaks actually hopped or whether they stopped at the winning post? Under the previous Government export inspection and control of the export market was very bad. Several times in this place we have heard the honourable member for Gwydir raise the issue of beef exports to Japan. The market was completely killed by his Government's inability to maintain proper standards for meat exports. Let us not forget the historical circumstances. Honourable members opposite were members of a government which saw enormous decreases in Australia's economic performance and, certainly, experienced a scandal relating to meat exports. Let us not talk about knackeries and horses, and so on because, very clearly, the performance of the previous Government left a bit to be desired. Another thing that is really quite staggering is that the Opposition's amendment proposes to remove export charges. If we go back to the record, it was the Fraser Government which introduced export inspection charges. Honourable members opposite cannot run away from their history. They were part of the group that tended to bring it in. Let us not suddenly pretend that all that history is forgotten. Let us not depart from history and imagine that they were not involved. In fact, when they were in power they did introduce export inspection charges, and the 50 per cent recovery regime that we are talking about in this legislation was introduced when they were in government. I quote: The Balderstone group on Agricultural Policy established by and reported in 1982 to the Fraser Government stated: 'Existing 50 per cent recovery arrangements should be continued'. Where did these recovery arrangements start? They started in 1979 under the Fraser Government. Let us not imagine that this proposal was just the action of the Hawke Government. What we have done is try to tidy up the mess honourable members opposite have left us with. I will talk about that in a minute. The 50 per cent recovery arrangements were started under the previous Government. The Balderstone Working Group to provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture, whose report Fraser accepted, stated that the 50 per cent recovery arrangements should continue. When we are talking in a debate like this, let us get our history right. History shows that the previous Government introduced the 50 per cent recovery arrangements. The other thing that needs to be noted is that the honourable member for Gwydir, and others who will follow him in this debate, behave in this place as though suddenly the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Hawke Government have introduced these export inspection arrangements. Let us look at the legislation that we are consolidating in this Bill. We are consolidating the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act of 1982, the Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act of 1981, the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act of 1982, the Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act of 1981 and the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act of 1979. Who was in government during that time? Clearly, the honourable member for Gwydir was part of that Government. Clearly, it was the Fraser Government that was in power. Many of us try to forget that we ever had a Fraser Government, but let us not forget in terms of the accuracy of this debate that this was the time when that legislation was introduced. What we are doing in this Bill is consolidating all those pieces of legislation. That is one important thing that needs to be emphasised. The second thing that needs to be emphasised-the honourable member for Gwydir has said this and the point is correct-is that we are introducing a monitoring system which more effectively reflects the performance of the exporter. The previous Government had a flat rate system. What we are doing is operating in a tiered system whereby, if in effect the performance of an exporter is satisfactory, our charges and the export inspection arrangements will reflect that performance. We are, if you like, reflecting the performance of the exporter. In terms of the record of this debate, what we are trying to do is to react more effectively and sensitively to what the industry is about. At the same time, we are also trying to consolidate what amounts to a very large number of pieces of legislation. We are consolidating all those Bills to make a simpler process. As I have already said, those pieces of legislation were brought down prior to our coming to government. We are tidying up those things. I now turn to another point which needs to be established with a great degree of strength in this debate. The honourable member for Gwydir spoke about the burden being borne by export industries. It was under his Government that an artificial value was maintained on the Australian currency. Consequently, in effect, exporters tended to pay because the value of the dollar was artificially controlled. We were the ones who floated the dollar and who have therefore made it more possible for exporters to operate in a more competitive environment. If we are talking about the economic structure, let us get the record straight. The economic structure that has been established under this Government has enabled exporters to operate in a more effective environment. That is very clearly the case. The floating of the dollar has certainly done that. If the honourable member for Gwydir and others on his side were sincere in this debate, they would talk about how we can take advantage of that improved competitive environment. Let us not forget that the economic reality is that we are working in a more competitive environment. We recognise that that also applies internally. The honourable member for Gwydir spent some time saying that Australian exporters in the primary industry area face a difficult situation. We recognise that. We also recognise that attempts to bring down inflation and interest rates and wage-price pressure are very important. Our endeavours in that respect compare favourably with the endeavours of the previous Government. Under our policy, inflation is lower, interest rates are lower and the wage-price pressure is lower. No one is pretending that everything is easy, but if we are talking about economic structures and economic competitiveness let us not forget that the economy in which we are operating today is both more healthy and more competitive than it was when we came into government in 1983. I said at the start of my remarks that the previous Government's performance left much to be desired, and that shows. When we are talking about assisting industry, let us not just get back to the business of looking at one industry in a one-off situation; let us look at the overall economic structure. It is a more competitive economic structure. We have made it possible for industries such as the primary industries to operate with reduced cost pressures in terms of wage pressures, and certainly reduced interest rate pressures. That has to be established very clearly. Many things can be said in this debate but the pressure of time is against us. What needs to be established very clearly, because obviously the Opposition will come back to this, is that the answer is not to say: 'Let us do away with all these export inspection charges now that we are in a situation in which we can turn the world to right'. The previous Government had those inspection charges. It also had a 50 per cent recovery regime. That approach was introduced in 1979. The other thing that needs to be said is that there was a very clear rejection by the Fraser Government of the view that governments should carry completely the cost of export inspections. Why do we have export inspections? We have them because we are part of an international trade arrangement. It is very much up to us to establish in the minds of those importing countries that the products that we are selling them are up to standard. Very clearly, if we cannot establish that in their minds, we will not have those export markets functioning properly. I recognise that sometimes non-tariff barriers are erected by some of the importing countries with which we are dealing. We recognise, as would those opposite, that there are other ways of getting at Australian exporters. That is a collective problem that we have in trying to deal with importing countries. But we cannot abandon the export inspection arrangements and thereby hope to retain our markets. Therefore, if we are to have an export inspection arrangement, what is to be the cost recovery? We seek a 50 per cent recovery of costs on behalf of the industry vis-a-vis government. That view was adopted by the Fraser Government, so let us not forget that matter. In terms of the way we are proceeding with this legislation, we are consolidating a number of previous pieces of legislation to make a more sensible array. We are also reflecting the fact that the monitoring system can react to the performance of the exporter. If the exporter performs very well, the volume of monitoring will go down. We recognise that. So, it is a performance based export inspection system. Finally, concerning the export inspection charges issue that has been raised by the Opposition, we have to get the record straight. The Opposition introduced that 50 per cent recovery arrangement. We are continuing it. Let us not imagine that somehow the Opposition has all right on its side, because it has not. It cannot continue to conceal the history of this matter from the Australian community. I am pleased to commend these Bills to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.41) —It is interesting that every time there is a legitimate complaint from the Opposition regarding the extravagances of this Government, the only defence the Government seems to be able to give us is a history lesson. It justifies all the bad things that it does on its perception of how a previous government may have done something. It is about time, after what is now almost three years of the present Government, that it started to stand up and say: 'We take responsibility for what we do. We are prepared to answer to the community for what we do'. Furthermore- Mr Wright —You have to be kidding. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member says that I have to be kidding. That is a very good example of the attitude of this Government. As long as it can fudge the issue and make it appear to the public that it is not the Government's fault, that all the disasters are not its fault, and that none of the matters in which it has succeeded have any relationship to the actions of a previous Liberal government, as long as it can carry on in that fashion, this Government believes it is successful. The Government has ridden on the tail of previous economic policy. Anybody who is silly enough to suggest in this place that any government, by its decisions, can turn an economy on its head in a matter of perhaps 18 months-certainly six or 12 months-is an economic fool, and economic fools we have in plenty on the other side of the House. The reality is that we will get changes to the economy only over time. It would not matter what a government did in its first six months of office, one would find that the economic decisions of a previous government would have a major influence. When we find that so many of the benefits are attributed to the accord, because of certain movements in the consumer price index and therefore in inflation, we overlook entirely what happened in the time of the previous Liberal Government. Most of those benefits occurred by coincidence, not because of the accord. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) talked about economic mismanagement. A method of altering the value of the Australian dollar was in force before we floated it. It was responding to the pressures of the international money markets. Those decisions were taken on a daily basis and, although I am very pleased that the Government chose to do away with that mechanism and let the market have its direct effect, the reality is that this situation is a problem for the Government because it is a demonstration of what the international community now thinks of the economic management of which the Government is so proud. The Export Inspection Charge Bill seeks to entrench further the costs that are applicable to the industry, particularly to the meat industry. The Government says: 'We are here to charge only 50 per cent, and that was the fault of the previous Government'. But we have to look at what that 50 per cent represents. The 50 per cent used to be 50 per cent of an amount of over $60m in 1979-80. This meant that $31m went to the producers via the processors. In 1983-84 inspection costs were $79m, and half of those costs are charged to the industry, which is an increase of 150 per cent. That is what we are on about. We are not on about the percentages; we are on about the realities. These increases have occurred as a result of the activities of this Government. We are well aware that while the cattle kill, for instance, has dropped dramatically from 8.8 million to seven million, this massive increase in total costs has occurred during that period. We have seen a substantial decrease in the number of meatworks operating. In fact 40 works have closed over the last five years. What have we seen concerning the number of government employed inspectors? We have seen that the number has been reduced from 1,794 to 1,632, which was the figure about a year ago. There has been no reduction in numbers because we have a Public Service mentality in relation to the employment of meat inspectors who operate in a cyclical and seasonal industry. That is quite improper. I have spoken in this Parliament time and again in an attempt to work out why it is costing the processor between $6 and $10 for the inspection of a beast. That is the cost the processor pays, and that is only 50 per cent of the cost; so we have to double that figure. The charge by a local authority for inspecting a beast in an abattoir in my electorate is only $2.80. I am not making a comparison between the $6 to $10 and the $2.80. The $2.80 is charged by a local authority in my electorate which gives a very adequate meat inspection service. It does not provide veterinary services but it provides everything else. If we increased that charge even to $3.50, 100 per cent of the cost of the meat inspection service is met by a local authority in my electorate. It is providing qualified inspectors and doing all the things that the Commonwealth does with its inspection service. Why is it that the service can be provided at that cost when the Commonwealth cost is so much higher? That is what the industry is on about. It would not mind if it had to pay 50 per cent of $2.80 or, say, $3.50, but it is certainly very upset with the cost that this Government chooses to levy and tries to excuse away by saying: 'The previous Government did something similar to that'. The previous Government did not; it charged substantially less. In my view, we still charged too much. The basic meat inspection service should not be provided by government. Importing companies do not require those inspectors on the floor to be employed by government. I established that fact by asking a question in this Parliament on a previous occasion. All that is needed is for us to supervise the inspection; that is what the importing companies demand of us. But we have this bureaucracy that wants to maintain its power and its staff numbers, and it promotes arguments that do not exist. The report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry recommended that, as soon as possible, the basic inspection services provided by the so-called meat inspectors become the responsibility of the industry. But what does this Bill do? The fruit industry, where things are already quite satisfactory and where the label that is on the product is the best recommendation of quality, knows that if it does not maintain quality, the consumers will very quickly identify that label. That industry is already meeting health standards within Australia which are very high. We find that the Government now wants to get in to that area. To people in that particular industry this Bill represents another $330,000 cost that they are not paying now. I can guarantee that the reputation of the Export Inspection Service is not such that it will raise the market potential of the industry. Not long ago, for about the fifth time I raised other problems in regard to its handling of halal slaughter of meat. I may come back to that matter shortly. The reality is that the Service gives very little to industry. It is a disaster. It certainly has not improved our reputation. As the honourable member for Stirling mentioned a little while ago, it contributed dramatically to the fall in the reputation of Australia's exports. He wants to blame the Fraser Government. The fact is that as a result of inquiries under the Fraser Government a large number of inspectors were stood down. They have now all been reinstated. How can the Government members, as policy makers, say that they have done anything about that problem? The Government has employed more inspectors for little gain. As I said, the costs have jumped from $31m in 1979-80 to $79m in 1983-84 and they are going up even further. How can Government members claim to be good managers? How can the honourable member for Stirling talk as he did? He wanted to give us another history lesson. He was trying to excuse the obvious inadequacies of his Government and its policies in this particular arena. Not so long ago the Government had great concern for the terms of trade. To date, devaluation has not had a major effect in assisting the farming sector. Yes, it has propped up prices that were falling on world markets anyway, but it ignores the huge cost to farmers of increased inputs from overseas. Much of their input, such as chemicals, is being increased. On a typical farm in my electorate chemicals cost up to $50,000 a year and the cost of fuel is a similar amount. Unfortunately, the farmers have to pay the costs first. The returns on a wheat crop come after that form of expenditure. So they are not seeing a great advantage yet from devaluation although I think they, too, would approve of that move. We are stuck with the fact that because of their great concern they called on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and some of his senior Ministers to put their case. What did they get out of that? They were told that their figures were wrong. It is the same as what happened to all those poor people who put their figures into the Department of Social Security so that they could maintain their pension. They were told that those figures were wrong. The fact that some of them are now starving apparently has little influence on the Department of Social Security. The farmers went before the Prime Minister and all their figures were questioned. They were told to go back to the drawing board, but the Prime Minister nominated a time five weeks hence for that summit to continue to give time for both sides to review their figures. It is my understanding that it was eventually agreed that the farmers' figures were right and that their terms of trade are as bad as they argued. Did that help them? No. The day before the very day that they were to meet again, the Prime Minister announced a continuation of the parity pricing policy arrangements and a 4c a litre increase in fuel. They got no assistance. They were told to go away, that there was no help for them, and an additional tax burden was added. Although our side of politics supports the concept of parity pricing-I believe it is essential for our national welfare-there is no reason for the Government to continue increasing its excise charges as it has and refuse to rebate the full amount to the rural sector as was always done. If someone wants a history lesson, this was always done by the Liberal-National Party governments of the past. The fraud that is being perpetrated on people now, whereby the Government is going to reindex the lower figure at the same rate as the higher figure and continue to increase the gap, is disgraceful. I am pleased that our parties will oppose that and try to reinstate the former situation, as we have promised in our policy. We have a number of further concerns regarding these inspection services. I have mentioned the costs again and again. I must repeat that it is possible to carry out these inspection services for a fraction of what the Commonwealth charges and an even lesser fraction of what it costs the Australian taxpayer. If honourable members think that is all, I inform them that on 17 April this year the Cattle Council of Australia sent a telex to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) expressing its concern. It stated: The Cattle Council is concerned at a directive which has been in force for some time from your Department to meat inspectors. I understand that the directive instructs inspectors not to cross officially authorised union picket lines where such action would either run the risk of widening an industrial dispute, or risk physical harm to the inspectors. Of course, any crossing of picket lines could be guaranteed to do both of those things. We know very well that the union movement is prepared to use muscle and injure people to gain whatever its particular desires happen to be. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) told us yesterday that there is no way in the world that he would take any action against a union because it would inflame it. Clearly, were the Commonwealth meat inspectors to cross the picket lines, the dispute would be inflamed. So crossing the lines is banned. In other words, as has been pointed out in this telex, two people who set up a picket line can stop the whole works because the EIS employees will not cross the picket line. The instruction says nothing as to the relevance of the dispute, whether the dispute is correct or whether it is in the interests of Australia nationally. Again, it is just an example of the Government bowing to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the various unions and taking its instructions as it does on a daily basis. People are complaining bitterly of the Government's attitude in telling people that they must not have anything to do with the dispute even if the dispute is not in the national interest. We wonder why, therefore, the Government has to raise such huge costs against primary producers to provide a service which in fact they probably do not even need or desire. These are the problems we have at the moment. The honourable member for Stirling mentioned meat substitution. It is interesting that although the honourable member for Stirling was telling us all about the problems of a previous government regarding meat substitution something worse is going on in our very important wheat industry at this time. The New South Wales grain handling authorities cannot prevent their wheat from being mixed up. There is nothing deliberate and horrible about it; they just keep putting sprouted grain in with good grain that is going to very delicate markets such as Japan, where the wheat is made into noodles and mixed wheat is a problem. Within the last week it has happened again. We have not heard much of it in the Press, but another load of substandard wheat has been sent to Japan or loaded into a ship. It is in fact mixed wheat. Whom do we blame for this? Do we blame the Fraser Government? We either blame the Wran Government in New South Wales, or we-- Mr Wright —Now you are attacking wheat farmers. You're a beaut. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am not. I am pointing out that the wheat farmer has not done this. It has occurred in the handling of the wheat after it leaves the wheat farmer. Farmers in my electorate are now willing to take legal action against the New South Wales Government, its grain handling authorities or the individuals involved to recover the $25,000 that they have estimated that it has cost Western Australian farmers for the gross inadequacy of that long time Labor State, New South Wales, when it comes to grain handling. It is a disaster. If the Government wants to talk about substitution, the substitution of half a shipload of sprouted grain in what is supposed to be the highest quality of wheat leaving Australia is certainly no recommendation for the export inspection services that are provided. It is a disaster. It just goes to show that these history lessons that we keep getting from the Government are not proper and, in fact, there is plenty of blame on the other side. The reality is cost. This amalgamation procedure is doing nothing to reduce the cost; it is increasing the costs in the fruit export industry. A paper entitled 'Facts on the Government's Meat Export Tax' put out by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council tells us that jobs have dropped from 39,000 in 1979 to 29,000 in 1984. To a great extent the Council blames the extra burden of costs that inefficient and inappropriate export inspection services have imposed upon the system. One of its submissions says that the producer's gross profit was only 2.2c per kilogram but the charge for export inspection was to be 2.4c a kilogram. How do we do our sums then? In all, although this legislation cleans up the situation, it does not go to where the problem lies. The problem lies in costs and inefficiency. The cost has done nothing to address that area; it has no intention of addressing it. If the Government says that farmers should pay 50 per cent of a charge which is about five times higher than what is necessary-I have proved that-of course the farmers have every reason to complain. I am glad to see that our government in the future will remove those charges. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.41) —In seconding the amendment- Motion (by Mr Humphreys) agreed to: That the question be now put. Amendment negatived. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.02) —in reply-The two Opposition speakers, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), of course repeated the usual myths that they continue to repeat whenever this subject comes up. The main claim by the honourable member for Gwydir was that the 50 per cent recovery policy is not followed by all competitor countries. A recent survey has revealed that, with the exception of New Zealand, all major competitor countries charge for export inspection. New Zealand is in the process of moving towards 100 per cent cost recovery and is phasing it in over three years. The Opposition says it believes that the costs should be borne by the Government. Implementing charges to recover government export inspection costs was a Liberal-National Party initiative. That policy was consistent with a range of other cost recovery measures introduced by the Liberal-National Party Government. The Opposition now says that any additional charges on export inspection will severely impact on export competitiveness. The competitiveness of canned fruits on export markets has been a long term issue and it existed long before inspection charges were introduced. Simplified inspection procedures will enable canners to reduce their inspection charges; in other words, contrary to what the honourable member for O'Connor said, in every place we are moving to limit charges and reduce as quickly as we can the number of people involved in inspection. The honourable member for O'Connor claimed that there is no requirement for meat inspection to be undertaken on the slaughter floor, and he said that this so-called fact was established as a result of a question in the House. The fact is that it is a clear condition of the United States and Japanese governments and the European Community that each carcass must be inspected on the slaughter floor. Moreover, the United States and the EC demand that ante- and post-mortem veterinary inspection be carried out, and the United States and the EC regularly send representations to Australia to review our inspection procedures to ensure that they meet these requirements. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 April, 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 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill concurrently with the Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill. There being no objection, that course will be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.07) —The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill give the Commonwealth power to set up and implement management plans for Australian fisheries. Under these plans limits can be set on the extent of fishing activity in Australian waters by allocating a fishing capacity, to be known as units, among licensed fishermen. Management plans for the rock lobster, northern prawn and southern bluefin tuna fisheries have already been adopted and will be formalised by this legislation. Under this legislation, managed fisheries will be able to extend their licence period beyond the current limit of 12 months. The levy Bill amends the Fisheries Licences Levy Act 1984 to impose a levy to the units allocated for each licence. Levy proceeds fund the administration of the management plans, and there are no direct financial implications for the Commonwealth Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, the three management plans formalised by these Bills have been sought by the fisheries. The Opposition will not be seeking any changes to the legislation other than a minor change that I have asked my office to forward to the office of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) relating to appeal provisions in clause 28 where the Minister or the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry chooses to revoke the licence of a fisherman. That will be dealt with at a later stage. We advance this amendment only to be helpful and constructive, not to be obstructive. I hope the Minister acknowledges that. However, I wish to make it clear that in government the Liberal and National parties would not be automatically committed to the introduction of new management plans for other fisheries under a legislative structure. We would need to be convinced that there was no other means of achieving these goals before agreeing to extend the management plan concept. In particular, there is a degree of uncertainty over the role of the States. I do not say that in any sense to knock what the Government is doing. It may be the right way through the problem; only time will tell. The industry has expanded significantly over the past two decades. It is already subject to a wide range of State Government controls. The Constitution gives the Federal Government power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits. Those limits are generally defined as three nautical miles seaward of the low water mark. The State and Northern Territory governments have the powers to regulate fisheries within their respective territorial limits. The major Federal legislation controlling the industry today, the Fisheries Act of 1952, is structured on these constitutional provisions. The Act provides for the licensing of fishing vessels and fishermen in proclaimed waters and the issuing of such regulations as entry limitations, boat and gear restrictions, fish size regulations and seasonal and area closures. An amendment in 1973 provided for the rational utilisation of fisheries as well as the conservation of resources. There has been a significant switch of views over the role of the Commonwealth since the 1952 legislation was enacted. At that time the States believed they lacked certain powers assumed by this Act, but today there is a growing body of legal opinion that the States do in fact enjoy wider powers than had been believed. In government the Liberal and National parties would be seeking further clarification of these powers to reassess the need for Federal controls such as those imposed by this Bill. I stress, however, that our parties do recognise the need for industry stability and a degree of certainty on which individual fishermen can plan their future activity. The southern bluefin tuna industry, for example, is among those fisheries which have been placed at a disadvantage by the existing arrangements. There has been a demonstrable need to strengthen current regulations in the face of a doubling of production over six or seven years and consequent falling returns to each industry member. Under the new management plan the number of boats will be almost halved to a couple of dozen and the annual catch pared back from 21,000 tonnes in 1982-83 to about 14,500 tones. As one industry member put it to me, those intending to stay in the industry have been able to buy out those who wish to leave, and those withdrawing have been able to do so efficiently and with dignity. This is not to say, however, that all fisheries would welcome similar management plans. I detect from my own liaison with the industry a growing demand for self-management practices free of the rigidities of a formal government plan and individual transferable quota system. Those fisheries characterised by a relatively small number of participants may be able to achieve their optimum levels of activity without the need for Federal restrictions on their catch. This point was developed at the recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics Outlook Conference, which I attended, by one of the three industry discussion leaders, Mr Michael Thomas. Mr Thomas is the immediate past president of the South Australian branch of the Tuna Boat Owners' Association of Australia and a member of the Interim Fishing Industry Consultative Panel, a highly experience, very intelligent and well informed spokesman for the fishing industry. In his address to the conference he recalled the Industries Assistance Commission recommendation that the Government allow the southern bluefin tuna fishery completely to manage its own affairs. In a general comment on the Australian fishing industry he pointed to industry fragmentation and a lack of economic expertise within fishing authorities as the main reasons why there had been little attempt to introduce self-management practices in the pre-1975 era. However, Mr Thomas painted a much brighter picture for the future. He told the Outlook Conference in part: The industry now takes a far more responsible attitude towards the development of management measures. There is now a greater awareness of what fisheries management is all about, and this can only bring benefits. I do not, personally, believe that fishermen have reached the stage today where they could take the full responsibility for managing their particular fishery. I am, however, confident that the industry will ultimately have the capacity to undertake the managing of fisheries in their own right. I believe that self-management should be the ultimate goal, and perhaps the Minister believes the same, although it must not be attempted before it can be transferred with total confidence, and I think that is important. In making these comments I stress that the ultimate objectives of management, autonomous or government-operated, must be to maximise economic performance; preserve marine resources; and give participants an ability to plan ahead with confidence. One of the most crucial difficulties has been availability of finance. The management plans and extension of licence periods under these Bills should greatly enhance the borrowing capacity of individual fishermen. A lack of finance has without doubt been one of the major problems holding back development, particularly in the less-established fisheries. This was one of the concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in 1982. The Committee found that evidence presented to it did not support the findings of earlier studies and in fact showed that certain sectors of the fishing industry were disadvantaged in terms of access to financial assistance and credit facilities. Perhaps the introduction of new banks and perhaps more competition in the banking sector will make that a little less of a problem to that industry as well as to other industries. Established fishermen in the more lucrative areas were the least affected, while those undertaking ventures of a developmental nature involving moderate or high risks had considerable difficulty in establishing adequate financial backing. Australia's great primary industries have been built on the entrepreneurial spirit of reward for risk-taking, and the fishing industry is no exception. Any steps which the Government can take to improve the industry's financial capacity are welcome. Over two decades the industry has grown from a very small scale to a point today where it earns more than $400m per annum. In recent years 75 per cent or more of earnings have been raised on export markets. The introduction of these management plans underlines the need to develop new fisheries rather than over exploit those already at peak production. This development will occur only if adequate finance is available. The industry and its lending authorities can be assured that the Liberal and National parties in government would undertake any review of management plans in the knowledge that financial commitment must be based on long term industry stability. The Opposition wishes to give speedy passage to these Bills. However, I foreshadow a review by the next Liberal-National Party Government of the way controls are being imposed on the industry. The objectives of maximising the industry's economic performance while preserving our marine resources, and the need for meaningful forward planning ability, would be paramount in such a review. The Opposition will not interrupt the passage of these Bills but it is concerned at the rather draconian powers of the Minister and the Secretary to cancel or suspend fishing licences. These powers are perpetuated by the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill. I therefore foreshadow an amendment to clause 28 of the Bill during the Committee stage. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.18) —In the second reading speech on the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said: The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide clear and legally-based powers for the development and implementation of management plans in accordance with the stated objectives of the Fisheries Act 1952 . . . I think it is important for the House to go back to what those objectives were in 1952. The Fisheries Act 1952 sought, firstly, to ensure that the living resources of the Australian Fishing Zone were not endangered by overexploitation; and secondly, that there was optimum utilisation of those resources. I intend to address my comments to the issue of overexploitation, and in doing so I will restrict my remarks mainly to the Capricorn coast of Queensland. Unless urgent action is taken by both the State and the Federal governments the east coast trawling area between Cape Conway and Cape Capricorn faces eventual extinction as an area for commercial harvesting of seafoods. At the moment there are approximately 80 master fishermen operating from the Capricorn coast with an investment of $30m and an annual gross income of $4m. But unless action is taken to put an end to the overexploitation of central Queensland waters the future of the region's fishing industry is indeed dim. Despite constant pleas from local fishermen, overexploitation continues because of the uncontrolled presence of fishing vessels from other parts of the State and also because of the fishing practices being adopted by some outside fishing vessels which can be described only as anti-industry. These fishermen are raping the fishery and must be stopped at all costs. Whereas it is usual for fishermen to catch prawns which weigh between 30 and 50 to the kilo, some vessels are now taking prawns which weigh 100 to the kilo. The banana prawn industry has meant tens of millions of dollars for central Queensland's economy. That has been only in the last decade. However, if the present practice of taking baby prawns continues, the industry will be destroyed. The Capricorn-Yeppoon area provides about 90 per cent of Australia's scallops but, like the banana prawns, the scallop industry on the central coast is under threat because of outside raiders. These raiders, apparently, have no interest in the future of the industry. They will take anything from the seabed if it means making a quick quid. The scallop grounds face extinction unless protective action is taken. I was speaking the other day to some fishermen on the coast who told me that, eight years ago, local fishermen could trawl for about an hour and a half and end up with 10 to 15 baskets of scallops for their efforts. Today they say that two and a half to three hours' trawling results in only two or three baskets. So one can gauge very quickly the downturn in return to these fishermen. The situation is worsening week by week as unscrupulous fishermen continue to use small-mesh nets. In the interests of the central Queensland fishing industry and, I believe, in the interests of the Queensland economy and the general region's economy, there has to be an end to the ongoing destruction of conservation and product control in this area. These practices not only threaten the future but also are destroying local market arrangements and prices. They are disrupting the moving and unloading of catches. They are causing additional costs to locals in harbour and mooring fees. A tougher approach has to be taken to conserve these fishing grounds. For that reason I welcome the initiatives and endeavours of John Kerin. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member should refer to the Minister as the Minister, rather than by his name. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I ask the honourable member to do so. Mr WRIGHT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept the pathetic, childish remark made by the honourable member. He constantly makes them. One ought to send him back to kindergarten or to the pre-school he attended, if he had an education at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will use the proper terminology when referring to the Minister, in accordance with Standing Orders. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a further point of order. I was offended by the honourable member's remarks that I was childish. He was reprimanded. Will he withdraw those remarks, please? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr WRIGHT —To withdraw what, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr McVeigh —Your stupid remarks, you dill! Mr WRIGHT —He is a typical National Party clone, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Groom will withdraw his remarks, unqualifiedly. Mr McVeigh —I will withdraw unqualifiedly, providing the honourable member for Capricornia withdraws unqualifiedly. Mr WRIGHT —That is the worst unqualified withdrawal I have heard in my 16 years of parliamentary experience. However, let us go on. Months ago central Queensland fishermen prepared a submission on these issues which was sent to the Queensland Government. But as yet there has been no response. The fishermen believe that there should be uniform State and Federal legislation relating to the fishing industry, especially in this region. State laws place a limit on net sizes, but under Federal law virtually any sized net can be used. It is constantly claimed by the locals that vessels using the larger mesh in Federal waters constantly sneak into State waters and take undersized catches. The main thrust of the submission centred on the closure policy to be implemented in the region, especially for scallops. The request that was put forward is for a four-month closure period between 1 June and 30 September, when scallops cannot be taken. Fishermen recommend that, outside those four months, individual areas be closed when deemed necessary to allow a build-up of stock. Controls are also sought over the horsepower of vessels fishing the region. It is suggested that the engine power should be limited to 450 horsepower. The fishermen believe that it is the engine power that enables what they call these foreign or outside vessels to overexploit the scallop grounds, and not necessarily the length and overall size of nets, although they also seek controls on that aspect. Coupled with this is the call for controls on mesh size. It is recommended that the minimum size to be established for scallops be 3 1/2 inches and that there be uniformity between State and Federal legislation. The Capricorn coast fishermen have submitted that the length of nets should be not more than a combined top and bottom length of 109 metres and the mesh of nets be not less than 83 millimetres for scallops and 50 millimetres for prawns. It is urged that, as is the case with scallops, there be a closed season for prawns. While no specific period has been recommended, it is suggested that a local zone committee made up of fishermen in consultation with the Queensland Fish Management Authority should set a commencement date each year when the taking of banana prawns is outlawed. Coupled with the closed season policy, it is strongly argued that beam trawling in the estuaries, creeks and rivers for banana prawns be phased out. Proposals have been put forward to cater for fishermen with beam trawlers, advocating that they be allowed to obtain vessels of up to 12 metres in length. Local fishermen are also advocating limitations on the size of boats allowed to fish in the area. The length, it is suggested, should not be more than 20 metres from the forepart of the hull to the afterpart of the hull, excluding rubbing strips and other hull attachments including the bowsprit. Controls of entry to the area are also sought. It is advocated that only owners of licensed fishing vessels who have been on the Queensland electoral roll for an electorate in the region from Cape Conway, north of Mackay, south to Cape Capricorn should be allowed to fish the area. The area or zone would include all waters from Cape Conway to Cape Capricorn, east to the 100-fathom line. Fishermen believe that vessels should be required to keep log books during working hours and that no vessel should have more than one limited area entitlement. That might put an end to those Gulf fishermen who have come around from the Gulf of Carpenteria and who have been exploiting the central Queensland grounds. As the main threat to the fishery comes from outsiders, local fishermen want vessels with a Gulf of Carpentaria endorsement and others with entitlements to fish in other areas to be prohibited from working central Queensland waters. They are not being selfish. They have given consideration to the rights of amateurs and they believe that fishermen with vessels less than 12 metres who satisfy the proposed entry requirements be granted entry without penalty, provided they do not hold an off-shore, otter trawl or beam trawl entitlement. It is a pity that some of these foreign vessels or outsiders do not give the same consideration to amateurs, as they have been exploiting the favourite, close-to-shore areas on the Capricorn coast. It has been said by spokesmen for tourist areas that this could devastate our tourist regions. I welcome the initiative by the Hawke Government and, in particular, by the Minister for Primary Industry. This legislation has been brought forward after full consultation with the States and the fishing industry. Its objectives are to achieve an overall marketing and management plan to determine the nation's total fishing capacity. When one considers the announcement the Minister made on 22 April, one realises how clear is the Government's commitment to the fishing industry. The Minister announced that the Government would boost to $3.6m the fishing industry research trust account which will fund 32 continuing projects and also initiate 32 new projects. The Government realises that the Australian fishing industry has a bright future. For the eight months to February 1985 the value of exports was $246.1m, imports being $204.8m. The annual estimate for 1985 means that our exports will grow to something like $300m. However, we must act against overexploitation. I believe that this is what the Government is about. We need to make sure that our fisheries are more viable. We need to increase the profitability of those in the industry. These objectives are also necessary to save the central Queensland industry. I urge the Minister and the Parliament that the overall management plan be implemented to ensure that the plight of Queensland is considered and that action is taken to save the investment of the 80 fishermen in the region. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(11.29) —It was interesting to listen to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) who spoke of the desire of the central Queensland fishermen to kick out of their fishery the Gulf fishermen, as he called them, who come around and overexploit, as the honourable member said, the central Queensland fishery. Perhaps the honourable member can be sympathetic, then, to the plight of Northern Territory fishermen. Northern Territory fishermen make up the smallest proportion of the licence holders who operate in the northern prawn fishery. The vast majority of licence holders comes from Queensland. A large proportion also comes from Western Australia. In the past contribution of the Western Australians to the fishery has certainly involved fishing the coastline and plenty of fishing effort. Indeed, I suspect that the majority of fishermen who come around from the Gulf to fish off central Queensland, as the honourable member for Capricornia said, are Queensland fishermen. I would suggest that if that sort of favoured treatment is to be meted out to central Queensland fishermen, Northern Territory fishermen be given something of the same sort of deal. In general terms, as the member for the Northern Territory, I welcome this legislation. In relation to the northern prawn fishery, the legislation will enable the implementation of almost the exact proposal that the Northern Territory put before the Commonwealth, Queensland and Western Australia in 1982, when the Northern Territory expressed its deep concern about the overexploitation of the fishery resources in the Gulf of Carpentaria. As well as the resource being abused, Northern Territory fishermen were virtually being squeezed out of their own off-shore grounds. Some time before that the Northern Territory became extremely concerned about the excess of fishing effort in the declared management zone of the northern prawn fishery, which at that time included the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Northern Territory coast along to the Western Australian border. We proposed that the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth manage the area west of the Wessel Islands separately, leaving the Gulf of Carpentaria to tripartite management with Queensland. The howls of rage in Western Australia, which at that time contributed nothing but a great deal of fishing effort to the fishery, could be heard here in Canberra. Years ago I went to Hobart to put the Territory's case to the Australian Fisheries Council. At that time no one would have a bar of our west of the Wessel Islands proposal. The outcome of this proposal was to initiate a complete review of the management of the northern prawn fishery, which resulted in a seven-point plan being approved by the Australian Fisheries Council in 1983 and reconfirmed by the Council in 1984. The elements of this plan included formation of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Committee, called NORMAC, to report directly to the Australian Fisheries Council on matters relating to management of the northern prawn fishery; unitisation of the fishing capacity of all vessels in the fishery; implementation of a voluntary licence entitlement buy-back scheme; increasing the effectiveness of the boat replacing policy; extension of the declared management zone westward from Cape Ford to Koolan Island in Western Australia-I might say that it should go further; increased penalties for offences in the declared management zone; and streamlining of licensing procedures. The majority of these elements of the plan have now been agreed to. However, the unitisation and buy-back provisions of the plan cannot be implemented due to the inadequacies of the legislation. To overcome these inadequacies, the original levy legislation was introduced and passed in this House to allow the Commonwealth to collect the buy-back levy. It has taken a long time for the sense of our reasoning to be seen, but since this legislation is at long last before us, I express my personal relief that action has been taken-better late than never. In the Territory since 1978 we have worked hard to provide the necessary facilities for the fishing industry. Where previously there was nothing for the industry, there is now a small ships facility built under a joint venture arrangement. In Darwin a public wharf has been provided specifically for the industry and new wharves and facilities are to be provided at Gove. Even so, the major casualties of the cyclone that hit Darwin a few weeks ago were prawning vessels moored in Darwin Harbour. It is hoped that a tidal basin may be able to be constructed, but this will depend on feasibilities. It will be able to be used by all small ship operators and, for that matter, yachtsmen. The Territory Government has reclaimed land for further fishing industry infrastructure development in the area of the port of Darwin, but these efforts to ensure support for our commercial fishermen-the only facilities between Cairns and Perth-will be left high and dry if the necessary support in fishing management is not forthcoming from the Commonwealth. This support is forthcoming at this stage, but I hope that in the future it will not take so long. I hope that these amendments will enable speedy, effectual, and flexible responses to industry problems in the future. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(11.36) —At the outset of my address I say that it is refreshing to see that the approach to this legislation seems to be on common ground. I refer to the contributions by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), who have raised no objections to the legislation as it is presented. We have a very minor amendment, which the Deputy Leader of the National Party has put before the House. The one common thread that can be found in the contributions from both sides of the House is that there is no doubt at all that management of the Australian fisheries is certainly necessary. The honourable member for the Northern Territory, in his previous role as the Chief Minister of that Territory, for a number of years attempted to have introduced into the Federal Parliament legislation for this type of management. In fact, he said that he came to Canberra to do that in 1982. One will note the year and who was in Government at the time. Nothing has happened since 1982, but we have now before the Parliament comprehensive legislation for the future management of the Australian fisheries. He said that he went to Hobart prior to 1982 and that his words fell on deaf ears at that stage too. It is pleasing that we are as one in relation to this legislation. I believe that it will be in the best interests of the industry in the future. In joining in the debate on this legislation, one must revert to the original legislation, the Fisheries Act of 1952. When that legislation was introduced the fishing industry was only a fledgling. At that time the total harvest of crayfish, prawns and oysters amounted to a mere $3.75m. If one contrasts that with the industry as it stands today, there is a stark difference. The fishing industry's input into Australia's gross domestic product stands at about $900m annually. The industry employs in excess of 200,000 people. In 1952, when the original legislation was introduced in this place, the industry was certainly not of that stature. I wish very briefly to add to some of the comments made by other speakers on this legislation. I very much welcome it. It should be well-known by most Australians that the Gulf of Carpentaria, the far north-eastern coast of Australia and the Torres Strait fall within the electorate of Leichhardt. Mr McVeigh —Good fishing grounds, too. Mr GAYLER —Good fishing grounds. The fishermen there have as one welcomed the approach of this Government, not only in relation to the Gulf of Carpentaria but also the Torres Strait and the east coast trawl fishery, which extends from Barrenjoey Point to the tip of Cape York Peninsula. In the management of fisheries in the future we must overcome the exploitation of the fisheries which has occurred over a long period. The fishermen now have the difficulty of very little return for their capitalisation in the industry. That has been brought about by a number of factors. I know that there are problems in relation to fuel pricing, but that is not the sole factor affecting the reduced returns of the fishermen. I ask that the people of Australia be told that there are other deep-seated problems. Some of these problems-not all of them-will be overcome with the introduction of this type of legislation. Certainly the problems of overexploitation and over-capitalisation will be overcome. The Australian fishing industry has too many large vessels. It is interesting to note that this Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) introduced a boat buy-back scheme. With total consultation with the State governments and the industry, this was a step that was supported and welcomed by the fishing industry. The industry has overcapitalisation and it has a weak export market. One looks with some trepidation at the Bureau of Agricultural Economics indications for the international market for prawns, which of course constitute the major product from the Gulf of Carpentaria, the Torres Strait and far north Queensland. The BAE indicates that the international market for prawns is likely to remain weak for some time. When one takes account of those factors, factors that already exist in the industry because there has been no proper development or implementation of marketing or management programs previously, and when one accepts that those difficulties and flaws in the industry already exist, one sees that this exemplifies more the necessity for the introduction of this type of legislation. There are, in fact, three major fisheries in far north Queensland and I refer briefly to them. They are the East Coast Trawl Fishery-and I have already indicated to the House the geographical description of that fishery-the Northern Prawn Fishery and the Torres Strait Island Fishery. In conclusion, I can assure the House, other fishermen of Australia and the fishing industry that, from my discussions with a number of members of those fisheries, the fishermen and processors in the far north of Queensland welcome this type of legislation because it will lead to the proper management and development of those fisheries in the future. It is high time that the band-aid treatment of the previous Government for the fishing industry of Australia was cast aside and legislation such as this implemented. I join with members of the fishing industry in my part of Australia in commending the Minister for Primary Industry for introducing such wide-reaching and comprehensive legislation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.43) —in reply-I shall sum up quickly and thank the honourable members who have participated in the debate. The Government rejects the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill which proposes that there be a right of appeal against the suspension of a licence on reasonably believing that the holder has committed one of a number of offences specified in sub-clause 10 (a). It would not be proper to make such an amendment. To do so would create a situation in which a person suspected of breaching his licence or a prohibition made for the welfare of the fishery or of obtaining a licence fraudulently would be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of the licence. The Bill provides adequate protection for such a person. If he is not summoned to answer a charge within a month of the suspension, the suspension ceases. If the summons is issued the matter becomes one for the court to decide. Clause 28 is a drafting amendment which confirms the right of appeal against cancellation of a licence. This right was inserted in 1984 and at that time the Opposition did not oppose the omission of suspension of a licence from the list of appealable decisions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.45) —I move: Clause 28, page 16, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Reconsideration and review of decisions by the Minister or Secretary 28. Section 16A of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) ''9A (1)'' (wherever occurring) and substituting ''9A (1), 3A''. At present the Fisheries Act empowers the Minister or the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry to cancel a licence. The Minister or the Secretary may also suspend a licence for a limited period-that is, one month-until the completion of any prosecution for a breach of the licence conditions or for a longer specified period following the suspension or cancellation of the holder's State licence. Following amendments which came into effect in June 1984, the decision to cancel or suspend in the circumstances of the longer specified period that I mentioned may be reviewed under the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. A suspension for the limited period or until completion of prosecution is not reviewable under the present Act. The Bill expands the grounds on which a licence may be either cancelled or suspended. However, the effect of a suspension will be reduced to a minimum imposed by the present scheme. Under the new scheme a licence will be suspended only for a maximum of one month or until the completion of the prosecution. As with the existing scheme where a licence is reviewed for this period, there is no right of review. I do not think that in itself justifies why it should be continued and carried forward into this legislation. It may be argued that when these lesser periods of suspension are imposed the short period of suspension is insufficient to permit a review to be made. However, the Opposition believes that an extension of the right of review provisions is desirable and has therefore presented this amendment to the Bill. This amendment is advanced in a constructive sense because under the Bill and under other legislation there is no provision for appeal, which could be a very critical matter if a licence had been wrongly suspended. Departments and Ministers are not always right and in the course of a fishing season when a run is on a fisherman could be put to great loss as a result of an arbitrary decision taken either by the Secretary to the Department or by the Minister. Whether this is the right way to achieve our objective I do not know, but the Opposition would like to see some provision made-whether it is this provision or some other-to enable a quick review to be made where such a review or appeal is desired by the person who has suffered the suspension or the cancellation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.48) —In my concluding remarks on the second reading I addressed this amendment. All I can do is repeat what I said at that time. The Government sees quite clearly that the Bill provides adequate protection for such a person as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) refers to. If such a person is not summoned to answer a charge within a month of the suspension, the suspension ceases. It is not as if these decisions are taken lightly. For example, if someone was prawning in a nursery area or doing something that was very much against the Fisheries Act, it would be quite important that some action be taken rather than let it go without anything being done. If the summons is issued the matter becomes one for the court to decide. By and large we believe that such an individual as referred to by the honourable member would be protected. The Government rejects the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill 1985 concurrently with the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill 1985 and the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Amendment Bill 1985. As there is no objection, that course will be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.52) —Before addressing myself to the specific issues in these three Bills, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Amendment Bill, which will have a disastrous effect upon those engaged in the dried fruits industry unless the Government is prepared to accept the amendments which I will move on behalf of the Opposition, I wish to say a few words about the Australian dried fruits industry. There is a perception that the Australian dried fruits producers are a heavily subsidised group of people and that Australia would be better off without such an industry. That perception is totally wrong. For the entire fruit industry the net government direct commitment is estimated at $2m. The underwriting payout during the 1983-84 season to the dried fruit industry was $1.3m with no net payments in 1984-85. The Opposition also wishes to make the point that the industry contributes between $65m and $120m per annum to the gross domestic product. It earns an export income of between $50m and $80m per annum. The industry involves 4,000 growers and their families, employing 17,000 people both directly and indirectly. It is a very labour intensive industry. The equalisation payments are funded by a levy on the growers but involve a consumer transfer to the industry on the domestic market. Notwithstanding this fact, the product price for dried fruit in Australia has remained broadly in line with movements of the consumer price index. When one considers that there are 17,000 people involved in this industry, with a total net government payout of less than $2m, it is a small outlay when compared with the Hawke Labor Government's decision to apply a 15 per cent tariff on grain harvesters to guarantee the employment of 260 people engaged in farm machinery manufacture in a marginal seat in Victoria. Mr Peter Fisher —No equity. Absolutely no equity. Mr HUNT —No equity at all. This costly form of protection is being borne by a small number of grain growers in Australia when a $2m bounty could have achieved the same objective. But the Government chooses to impose a 15 per cent tariff costing grain growers in this country about $14m, which is pocketed by the Government, and at the same time it has afforded protection to the industry concerned, protecting the jobs of 260 people. The Opposition does not totally oppose the decision to limit the difference between the rate of equalisation payments and the average export return to 27.8 per cent for currants, 23.6 per cent for sultanas, and 47.2 per cent for raisins for the season commencing 1 January 1988; that is, for the coming three-year period. However, we are not prepared to go along with the five-year recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission that the level of assistance be reduced to 15 per cent because of the uncertainty of world market conditions and the devaluation of the dollar. The Opposition believes it is essential for the IAC further to review the economic situation facing the dried fruits industry and those engaged in it in 1988 and to report on what measures should be taken to help strengthen the dried fruits industry to meet the competition from such countries as Greece, Turkey and the United States and countries which heavily subsidise their industries. By that time it will be interesting to see what the government of the day is prepared to do in respect of freeing up the wages system. It will also be interesting to see how far the Government is prepared to go in reducing the level of tariff protection on secondary industries in this country. I have been concerned that despite the substantial reduction in the level of assistance to agricultural industries falling from 28 per cent to 8 per cent over the past 12 years there has not been an equivalent fall in the level of assistance for secondary industries, which fell from 36 per cent to 25 per cent. Therefore, on average the actual fall in effective assistance for agricultural industries has fallen twice as fast as it has for manufacturing industries. There is no way the farmers of this nation can go on having their levels of assistance and protection removed at such a rate while the levels of assistance remain as high as they do for secondary industries, and while we have a rigid institutionalised wages fixation system that is bloating the wage and on-wage costs structure in this country. The wages regime has an enormous bearing on the welfare of the dried fruits industry, which is a labour intensive industry. In fairness, no one in this Parliament should endeavour to single out the dried fruits industry or any other industry to be punished with medicine which has not been dealt out to other sectors of the Australian community. I thought that the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), made a very good speech in this place yesterday. He made a point in a very articulate fashion in regard to the centralised wage fixation system and how it stands out like a sore thumb now that the Government has taken the right decision to free up the money and the financial system in this country. There is no way that the primary industries of this country or, for that matter, any small businesses or anybody else can afford to take treatment that the rest of the community is not prepared to take in regard to the removal of consumer transfers, bounties, subsidies or whatever. The time has come when there has to be a rethinking in this country about the whole structure of costs generally. Central to this issue is what we should do about wages at this point. The right decision has been taken in regard to the financial system of this country. It needed to be freed up, but now the big decision is facing this Government or a future government on the freeing up of the wages system and the removal of tariff levels of protection on industries in this country in accord with the actions that have been taken on the advice of the IAC in regard to the farming sector of Australia. Each of these Bills will have a significant impact on the dried fruits industry, in particular on the export sector of the industry. The first Bill, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, increases the size of the Corporation from eight to 10 members. While the Wheat Bill reduces the number of members of the Australian Wheat Board, this Bill increases the size of the membership of the Corporation. At present, growers comprise four of the eight members. The extra two members will be appointed by the Minister, and must have a background in finance, commerce or marketing. The second Bill, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill, changes the basis of underwriting from all sales to export sales only. The Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill imposes a ceiling on the difference between returns from domestic sales and export sales. The maximum variance between the domestic price and the average export price will be 15 per cent. At present there is no limit to this variance, which is estimated to be 37 per cent in the 1984 season. The Opposition holds deep reservations about the practical application of these Bills. We will be seeking to amend the third Bill in order to align this legislation more closely to the needs of the dried fruits industry. The legislation as it stands will induce a short term artificial depression of market prices by unnecessarily distorting market forces. The paramount consideration of these Bills seems to be part of Labor's plan for a cheap food policy at the expense of the already impoverished farmers of Australia. In the longer term, the big losers will be not only the industry but also the consumers. There is a need for any legislation of this regulatory character to be constructed in the best long term interests of the producers and the consuming public. The industry makes an important contribution to the Australian economy, largely unaided by Government assistance. Each of the 4,000 growers initiates an employment multiplier effect of 3.3 to one, so the industry is directly responsible for 17,000 jobs and indirectly responsible for tens of thousands of other jobs. Indeed whole communities, such as that great city of Mildura, which the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) represents so efficiently in this House, are largely dependent on this industry. On average, two-thirds of annual production is exported, making dried vine fruits the most export-oriented of the Australian horticultural industries. In assessing these Bills, the Parliament must recognise the challenges faced by the industry in recent years. In particular, there have been wide fluctuations in world market prices, due to substantial seasonal surpluses from time to time being produced in Greece, Turkey and the United States of America. In 1980 the average export return to packers was $1,260 per tonne-more than $200 above the domestic return of $1,056. By last season the export return had dropped to $665 a tonne in the face of heavy overproduction by Greece and Turkey. Countervailing duties have now been imposed on Greek import, which will give honourable members some indication of the extent to which world prices have collapsed. Throughout this period, the Australian consumer has enjoyed an uninterrupted supply of high quality domestic fruit at a consistent price level. There is no better dried fruit in the world than that produced in Australia. It is of a very high quality. It is a great pity that dried fruit is not put in all of the ration packs that are produced for the Army. In fact, I am shocked that that is not done because we have a great industry in Australia. There is no doubt that, when one is out in the bush and running short of tucker, there is nothing better than a bit of dried fruit to help survival. The old soldier, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is at the table, would know that. Over the past decade, retail prices on the home market have broadly followed the Consumer Price Index, and the maximum increase in any one year has been 12.5 per cent. The 4,000 growers and another 13,000 employees along the industry chain operate largely without Government support. The $21.5m payment to the Australian Dried Fruits Corporations for equalisation of domestic and export returns are fully funded by the industry. Commonwealth underwriting for sultanas, guaranteeing a minimum return equal to 90 per cent of average net returns over the past two seasons and the present season, resulted in a payout of just $1.3m in 1983-84. No payments were anticipated in the 1984-85 Budget. Industry promotion, research and marketing are financed through industry levies. For the entire Australian fruit industry, the net direct government commitment this year is estimated at $2m. This is a small price to pay when, for instance, that $2m bounty has been used in Victoria to protect 260 jobs. The dried vine fruit industry has tackled its challenges on the world market largely unaided the Government. Inevitably the growers have suffered falling returns because of world market fluctuations and the subsidy policies, overproduction and seasonal variations in other countries. The Industries Assistance Commission estimated the net cash operating surplus per farm in 1982-83 at less than $11,000. The industry recognised the need for ongoing rationalisation to achieve greater economies of scale. The Opposition's major concern lies with the imposition of new controls on the industry's domestic and export returns under the Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill, and I will outline this concern in detail shortly. First, I refer to the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill, which alters existing arrangements from the start of the 1986 season. The present legislation has improved confidence within the industry by guaranteeing a minimum average net return of 90 per cent of the average production in the years of 1982, 1983 and 1984, rising to 95 per cent in 1985 and 1986. I underline the fact that underwriting provisions cost taxpayers less than 20c each in the last financial year, despite the dumping actions of export competing nations. The Bill now under consideration sets the guaranteed minimum rate at 80 per cent, but changes the base of the system from all sales to only export sales. The Bill effectively matches or increases underwriting payments of recent years for the dominant export variety, sultanas. Although sultanas dominate export sales, there is a strong case for currants and raisins to be included under the provisions of this Bill. Their inclusion would further enhance the confidence of producers and could help to develop the export capacity of these varieties and maintain a balance of production between the varieties. Raisins, in particular gordos, have come under increasing demand from wineries. This has led to extensive plantings over recent years. Should the winery intake now stabilise, the export sector would be critically important to the viability of this section of the dried vine fruits industry. I turn now to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill, which is of particular concern. The scheme presently in force was introduced in 1979 to provide for equalised returns from export and domestic sales in seasons when export returns are substantially below domestic returns. The present scheme was used for the first time in 1982, when a glut of sultanas flooded the international market. The levy is applied across domestic returns and the proceeds disbursed across all returns. There is no financial role for the Commonwealth, which acts only as an agency to collect and disburse the levy proceeds. The Bill introduces a limit on maximum equalisation payments, tied to the world price. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has justified this new control by claiming that it will tie the industry to market signals and let growers experience the peaks and troughs of the volatile world prices. Applied to market realities, that is simply not true. In fact, returns to the industry will now become artificially depressed, threatening a situation of industry chaos and disrupting orderly rationalisation and attempts to improve economies of scale. The Bill reduces the differential between export and equalised returns to 15 per cent by 1990. The difference in the 1984 season is estimated to be 37 per cent. To explain the concern of the industry and the Opposition parties over these provisions, it is helpful to look at price trends in recent years. From 1981 to 1985 the domestic return at ex-packer level increased by 15.6 per cent, or less than the CPI, on figures prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Over the same period, with the onset of dumping on the world market, the export return has dropped 46 per cent to a level today which in no way equates either costs of production or domestic prices in the nations offering these low prices-in particular, Greece and Turkey, whose governments heavily subsidise their products. Equalisation has cushioned the impact of this dumping by delivering an average return down 16.4 per cent over this five-year period. The Minister justifies his Bill by saying that when world prices are low the domestic price will fall but when world prices are high the domestic price should rise accordingly. He argues that, when the world price rises, the industry should charge up to 15 per cent more than that price on the domestic market to make up for the times when the world price is depressed. How do the consumers feel about such a proposition? Let us take the 1979 and 1980 seasons, for example, when the world market showed a strong demand for high quality Australian sultanas. To use the Minister's argument, there would have been a 37 per cent leap in the domestic price in one year. At that time the domestic return was in fact 16 per cent below the average export return. If the world price were a more accurate reflection of real costs of production, the Minister's proposal might have a greater attraction. As it stands, this Bill can only produce wild price fluctuations on the Australian market, with serious consequences to the industry. Heavy domestic price rises can only lead to consumer resistance. Therefore, the peaks which the Minister promises as compensation for the troughs are unlikely to materialise. Manufacturing companies such as Kellogg (Aust.) Pty Ltd absorb some 50 per cent of total domestic production. Should they find such products as breakfast foods priced out of their highly competitive markets through steep price increases, the next move would be to tool out of production into other lines. The costs of tooling back into dried fruits might well be prohibitive, and so the long term losers are not only the consumers and manufacturers but the dried fruits industry itself. A severe contraction of market demand over a short period would have quite disastrous consequences for the industry. Should producers be forced out of production en masse, Australia would be left with just a rump of what was a vital domestic and export industry-one which today offers a stable supply of competitively priced, high quality produce to the Australian public. Why can the Government not see the damage that this kind of action proposed by the Minister could wreak on an important Australian industry? Mr Braithwaite —They do not want to see it. Mr HUNT —I do not think that Government members want to see it. The industry has done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment. Probably the reason why industry members have been singled out is that they do not vote Labor. I cannot understand why the industry has been singled out in the manner that it has. It has had plenty of opportunities in the past to exploit the Australian market in periods of high external demand. It has not done so. The industry has acted with great responsibility and the consumers have been the beneficiaries. Now the Minister is saying to the industry: 'I will force down your prices now, but some years down the track when there are shortages you should go your hardest to make up the leeway'. Against the background of other recent moves by the Government, such as the new dairy marketing arrangements, there is one explanation for the Minister's actions. The Government has a dual problem-holding down the consumer price index while wages continue to rise in line with full indexation under the accord with the unions, on the one hand, and finding new markets for Australia's secondary industry output which is being rendered increasingly less competitive on world markets due to the wage increases, spurred on by increasing protection due to the devaluation of the dollar, and other fast-rising costs. This legislation and other decisions by this Government have all the hallmarks of a cheap food policy-that is, push down the prices of food in the short term, regardless of the medium and long term consequences to farmers. Labor seems to be banking on the world price remaining corrupt between now and the next election. The farmers around Australia see right through such a policy. They will not be fooled by such political tricks. The limit of 15 per cent on the price differential will not achieve its stated goal of bringing the industry closer to market signals. In practice, it will do quite the opposite. An indication of the severity of this Bill is the scales adopted under clause 2, sub-sections (3) to (5). For the major export commodity, sultanas, the prescribed percentage declines from 32.4 per cent in 1986 to 15 per cent by 1990. For currants the percentage drops from 40.4 per cent and for raisins from 79.4 per cent to 15 per cent by 1990. Mr Peter Fisher —Survival of the fittest-that is what it is. Mr HUNT —That is what it is; absolutely. The coalition recognises that the world market has been corrupted by abnormally low prices, and that the 15 per cent maximum variation has been roundly rejected by the industry. I know that the industry is sick to death of inquiries. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) said that the other day. The Opposition does not oppose the direction that the Government is taking as a result of the last Industries Assistance Commission report, but we are stopping short of going to 15 per cent over a five-year period, because we do not believe that they could forecast or foresee five years ahead. We do not know what this Government, or any future government, will do about wages. We do not know what any future government would do about protection levels in respect of secondary industry. To be acting in a vacuum, where one lift is going down while all the rest are going up, is a crazy state of affairs. Because of our concern, we believe that an IAC inquiry should be established in 1988 to determine more accurately the appropriate limit to the equalised returns. In Committee, we shall move an amendment, the terms of which have been circulated to honourable members. I turn briefly to the other Bill before this House, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill. The Opposition does not seek to amend this Bill, but is concerned that the Corporation will be increased at a time of industry rationalisation. Producers will now have only 4 voices in 10, not 4 in 8. In 1978 the coalition reduced the membership from 12 to the present 8 in order to streamline operations and reduce costs. Now the minister says, on the one hand, that the industry needs to contract its production against a world market oversupply, and yet he is moving at the same time to increase the size of the Corporation. These Bills give all Australians, primary producers and consumers alike, an insight to the Hawke Labor Government's approach to rural policy. This Government is a sectional, union-dominated government bound hand and foot by the accord. It cares not a fig about the farmers or anyone else for that matter. It is interested only in the fostering of union domination in this country. These Bills were introduced to this House couched in doubtful economic theory, based on so-called world market forces, which are, of course, corrupted through the dumping policies of other nations. Then, to give some respectable objective to these measures, the Minister labours on about adjustment. Applied to market realities, the Bills will not achieve their goals. They will induce a short term depression of market prices at the expense of industry stability, the livelihoods of farmers and their families, and the eventual loss of an industry, exportation of jobs overseas and the loss of overseas exchange earnings. That is brilliant! These Bills serve, first and foremost, the short term political aspirations of the Labor Party. In the longer term, the big losers will be the producers, the people employed in the industry and, ultimately, the Australian people through loss of export income. It is particularly disturbing that such important changes have been thrust on the industry with a bare minimum of notice. I believe that the Minister has treated the Australian dried fruit producers with absolute arrogance. I urge the Government to reconsider this legislation and to support the amendment which I shall propose to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Amendment Bill. This amendment must be carried if the industry is to overcome its present difficulties, which are due to a corrupted world market. If the Parliament accepts this legislation in its present form, it will be sentencing the producers and the industry to a contraction, with heavy social and economic costs to the people directly involved in the industry, and to all the Australian people. I call on the Minister for Primary Industry to accept the amendment to be proposed by the Opposition. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(12.20) —The development or growth of multi-purpose grape production in Australia is a story of unprecedented agricultural productivity and successful decentralisation of industry and people. These developments grew out of an ideal combination of soil, water and climate, innovation and enterprise and substantial government support. These projects created a unique opportunity for individual enterprise. They provided work for thousands of men, women and their families at a time when returning ex-servicemen had little to look forward to. During the depression years, irrigation and drainage construction, the first in Australia, provided support and work for hundreds of the nation's unemployed. Today these regional communities are the stimulus for diversity of people, production and tourism and are the environment for a continuing contribution to the economy of Australia and the well-being of our people. It is significant to recognise the demographic changes within the dried vine fruit industry, where households today are characterised by younger age structures, larger household sizes and high concentrations of overseas born persons of non-English speaking origins. In Sunraysia, using income multipliers, some $194m is contributed by the dried fruit industry to the local district economy. It is in this setting that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has introduced these three Bills that will impact upon the viability of this industry. The industry and the community have been stunned and shocked at the savaging of the dried fruit producers implicit in the legislation and appalled that the Minister and the Labor Government have made no attempt to meet the immediate or long term social and economic needs of this industry that has contributed so much and has the potential, through innovation and diversity, to enhance further the well-being of regional communities in the future. This is a strong condemnation of this package of legislation. Before I go into details of each Bill let me summarise my reasons for making these assessments. The Minister has accepted an Industries Assistance Commission report that failed to take into account highly relevant considerations. It did not project any results of its recommendations on the incomes of producers or the large communities they support. It did not target any optimum production levels for the industry. It did not account for the social welfare effects of these recommendations to evaluate increased unemployment in areas already double the national average. The IAC recommendations are based on theoretical pure economics, but they cannot be accepted and should not be accepted by a government that allows the level of protection of farmers to fall to 8 per cent, and retains for manufacturers protection of 25 per cent and full indexation for all Australian wage and salary earners. In other words, the Minister is saying to primary producers: 'You will have to survive and compete in a deregulated environment, in a world market corrupted by subsidies, import duties and inefficiencies, while living domestically in a regulated economy with high costs'. Worse still, the Minister has removed the right of equity in prices between growers by destroying the philosophy of equalisation. The harshness of these decisions is that no care appears to have been given to the need for adjustment to take place in line with the long term trends of the industry. They are based upon an industry that is at the lowest ebb in its history. The cyclical nature of grape production and price movement in themselves should have prompted greater caution and understanding. During my 13 years as a representative of these regions, major highs and lows have occurred on three occasions. Even as we debate this legislation we see that prices are generally up by 50 per cent on last year. These rapid changes have taken place as a response to the high quality of this season's fruit, a shortage of good quality produce throughout the world and the benefit of Australia's currency exchange rates. Current price estimates for 1985 sultanas range between $900 and $950 per tonne compared to prices of some $650 per tonne in 1984. Such variations and fluctuations of income clearly demand the need for stability in marketing arrangements and confidence in government support in times of adversity. The Government has offered $5m additional adjustment assistance which is dependent on the appropriate State meeting one-third of this promise, but it has done absolutely nothing to improve rehabilitation measures, such as household support, to meet the unique problems of those who are self-employed. This neglect becomes significant if the displacement of many growers takes place and when increasing pressure on other grape outlets, such as wine production and the table grape industry, occurs. The Minister, when opening the federal conference of the Australian Dried Fruits Association in Mildura in July 1984, said: I am pleased to note that the industry is recognising the hard realities and has been actively examining how its problems can be addressed. He went on: We will look for ways and means to ease that burden to minimise to the extent practicable the disruptive consequences of necessary adjustment. The Minister has failed on both accounts in these Bills. No notice had been taken of the professional, documented and practical advice from the Industry, or of the trauma that will be caused by radical and forced adjustment. I turn now to the Bills in detail. The first Bill changes the memberships of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation by adding two additional persons with special qualifications. A cynic may say that this is part of the Minister's desire to reduce grower influence and policy in the control of their own produce. I hope that additional expertise will achieve the stated aims. We have a Minister who is increasing the Corporation's membership effectively to erode grower influence while, at the same time, in the Australian Wheat Board legislation that we will soon be dealing with, he is reducing grower membership to achieve the same aim. The second Bill amends the existing underwriting legislation. Underwriting was introduced to a number of rural industries by the previous Government in an endeavour to assist industries to avoid major price fluctuations while retaining a means of projecting market returns and potential to producers. The Government believes that these changes will provide roughly the same assistance. However, it can be shown that this year such arrangements would have provided a substantial gain to the industry, and additional payments are a possibility in future years. The one distinct disadvantage in this Bill is that underwriting applies only to sultanas, while changes made in the third Bill dealing with equalisation will bring about price fluctuations that will also affect currant and raisin growers. The 1985 currant crop may see a disposal of only 50 per cent of production and it is still unknown how much further production is to come on stream from new vines. Raisin varieties, particularly gordos, have seen extensive plantings. Demand from wineries sees the present production of raisin varieties being diverted to wine. The result of these diversions is to leave the dried vine fruit industry with an insufficient tonnage to service available markets. These markets may be lost for all time and not recovered when raisin production increases and greater quantities of raisins are dried as new plantlings come into bearing. The exclusion of these varieties evidences the major deficiencies in this legislation which has no production targets and no stimulus for the dried vine fruit industry to continue to be the most innovative and progressive in the world. I urge the Minister to amend the underwriting Bill so that all dried vine fruits-sultanas, currants and raisins-receive equal treatment and equal degrees of cushioning to stop falls in world market prices. The third Bill, the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill, is a disaster and signals the Government's intent to impact on domestic prices and so ensure that any government commitment risk is nil or, at the best, minimal. The existing equalisation levy was designed and operates as a measure to equalise returns from all markets. The Government now plans to limit the value of the equalisation levy so as to place a maximum on the price that can be charged on the Australian domestic market. Thus the Government's expectations are that Australian prices will fall in line with the trend on export markets. The actual value of the equalisation levy in each year will no longer be simply the difference between the Australian market and the average export return. The new equalisation levy will vary each year depending on the total production of the season, the relative proportions sold to the Australian market and export markets, and the returns achieved from sales to export markets. The result of limiting the equalisation levy in this manner is to destabilise totally the price for dried vine fruits in Australia. Estimates show variations in the Australian price over a four to five-year period of somewhere in the vicinity of 100 per cent. An average 5 per cent per annum increase in Australian dried vine fruit consumption has been achieved over the recent years by ensuring full supply to the Australian market and maintaining a pricing policy which has seen prices follow the changes in the consumer price index. Sudden price variations will destroy these sales levels. The Government fully intends the new equalisation mechanism to force Australian prices to match more closely export prices. Yet it appears that no thought has been given to the marketing realities of wild price fluctuations. Increasing the tonnage required to be sold on international markets is directly opposite to the need to stabilise the industry. When export markets are depressed and a low equalisation levy is set, very low Australian prices and returns to growers will be experienced. However, practical market forces will make it impossible to achieve the indicated peaks in Australian prices. The Government formula indicates price increases as high as 37 per cent from one year to the next. Obviously price increases of this magnitude could not be sustained without a severe buyer reaction and reduced consumption within Australia. Another aspect of fluctuating prices within Australia is that the price for any period is the base on which all future prices will be founded. As price increases will be constrained by the market, returns lost through lower prices may never be totally recovered by subsequent price increases but, on the contrary, the lower returns will be compounded ever onwards. Mr Hunt —Absolutely. Mr PETER FISHER —The shadow Minister obviously understands the situation that exists, as of course does the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). The Government has failed to recognise, therefore, that while aiming to reduce tonnages available to export markets it is essential for Australian producers to maintain and, where possible, to improve competitiveness on world markets. Increased pressure placed on growers will arise from an economist's expectation that the price mechanism support should be limited to a maximum of 15 per cent in any one year. This short sighted approach fails to take into consideration the long term nature of vine plantings and the highly variable nature of production and returns. The high variance in production and returns indicates that 15 per cent assistance provides insufficient support in the extreme low income years. The Minister, therefore, must amend this Bill to phase in the levy at a slower rate and I believe at no lower than 25 per cent at the end of the 1990 season. This would provide the industry with a greater capacity to absorb and avoid the considerable personal damage, trauma and loss of regional income associated with any adjustment. The amendment to be moved by the Opposition overcomes this lack of Government support, but it still, unfortunately, necessitates another IAC report. We are sick of IAC reports in the horticultural industries. They simply cannot afford to appear before the IAC on such frequent occasions. The additional adjustment funds of $5m which are intended to facilitate a vine pull program may well have been highly beneficial if the new legislation had placed restraints on the industry maintaining or acquiring an undesirable dependence on export markets. It has rejected this course in favour of the use of overseas market forces as the principal means of adjusting the industry to reduced production levels. Total adjustment of the grape industry is needed as wine and table grapes will also see severe repercussions. The interdependence of dried vine fruits, wine and table grapes will see strong pressures on access to wineries and fresh fruit markets as dried vine fruit producers are forced by severe economic pressures to seek alternative markets. Past reliance on IAC industry reports has been the basis for Government initiatives. This time the Minister has given an absolute imprimatur to the IAC, intent on introducing world price parity to Australian industry when the root cause of low world prices for dried vine fruit is directly related to European Economic Community subsidy policies and other international interventionist procedures, for example, Greek subsidies and United States of America actions. I ask the Minister why he rejected industry proposals that were designed to meet the long term rationalisation of the industry, that provided clear production targets and market signals, yet avoided exposing grape growers to the corrupt and violently fluctuating world markets. This approach, I believe, will result in adjustment, but only by virtue of the survival of the fittest. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.34) —One might reasonably ask as one rises in the House of Representatives this afternoon: Where are members of the Australian Labor Party? What is their interest in the welfare of the dried vine fruit growers of Australia? Why is it that I stand in a chamber almost empty to speak on behalf of those growers who sadly need real representation on the other side of this chamber. Mr Hunt —Not even the Minister for Primary Industry is here. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. When I was preparing these comments and when members of the Opposition were being lobbied by various people from the Australian Dried Vine Fruits Association, those who came to see us were suntanned Australians. These men did not have the sort of sallow, chemical complexion that we see decorating the 'Come to Keppel Island' posters. Oh, no. These were men who love a sunburnt country. They love a sunburnt country because that sunburnt country gives them their living. These men were suntanned by exposure to the same sun as dries their product. Their hands were callused with the reality that the work in which they were involved was intently labour intensive. These men ran quite counter to the popular concept of the industry being a peasant industry. These men were articulate and informed. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) have already given details of the way in which this legislation will adversely impact on the Australian dried fruit industry. The honourable member for Gwydir has outlined precisely what the Opposition intends to do about these Bills and the honourable member for Mallee has talked about the history of the industry and the impact of this legislation on the Sunraysia area. I say to the House that the industry under consideration this afternoon is unique because it uses one of Australia's greatest natural resources and uses it to the full. This industry takes Australian sunshine and uses it to produce a uniquely Australian product whose quality is envied across the world. Few other places in the world so lend themselves to the drying of grapes and the production of dried fruit as do the Sunraysia area of Victoria and the Riverland areas of South Australia. Although dried fruit industries are labour intensive wherever one turns in the world, it would be quite wrong for me to leave the chamber giving the impression that these industries were solely labour intensive and that that was a burden from which they could not escape. The same suntanned Aussies who came to talk to us when they were concerned about this legislation are the very men who have led the world in mechanising the dried fruit industry. If honourable members spend time in the Sunraysia, they will see that it is an area in which dried vine fruit production is more mechanised than it is in any other part of the globe. However, even with that level of mechanisation it is still a labour intensive industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you allow me to take the time of the House for but a moment to explain what has to happen in order to put a dried currant, sultana or raisin on the dining room table? These grapes are not harvested in dried form-at least not until recently. They have to be picked and it is difficult to pick them mechanically in their fresh state because the process of mechanically picking breaks the berries. That is tolerable for the wine grape industry, but intolerable for the dried vine fruit industry which has to keep the berry intact. Sultanas and raisins have to be sprayed with chemicals and laid in the sun to dry. Concerned about the labour intensive nature of such a procedure, Australian growers have pioneered the technique of endeavouring to dry that bunch of gordos or sultanas, as the case may be, on the vine. That is no mean achievement because that means reducing the flow of sap to the bunch, spraying it with a chemical while still on the vine, allowing it to dry and then, because it is dried on the vine, being able to mechanically harvest it without damaging it. These are the very procedures in which these men are involved. They are the very adventurous procedures that keep this industry in the forefront in world terms but, in spite of these procedures, this industry is labour intensive and finds it difficult to survive in the face of subsidised overseas production. Why is this industry in trouble? It is in trouble principally because in the early 1970s those who now sit opposite us were in government. They unwisely chose to take on the grape industry. Prime Minister Whitlam said: 'Let us reduce the differential between the excise on brandy and the customs duty on whisky'. One can ask: What has that got to do with dried fruit? As a result, Australian brandy sales plummeted and whisky sales, largely imported whisky, rose. So the brandy industry, which was once the buffer industry for excess dried fruit, disappeared. That is problem No. 1. But not content with stabbing the industry, the Whitlam Government then had to twist the sword as well. It rubbed out section 31 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the tax provision which encouraged producers to hold on to stocks. With the removal of that section we saw the effective extinction of the Australian brandy industry. As the Australian brandy industry disappeared, so the problems for the dried vine fruit industries were exacerbated, because this buffer zone was being lost. As if that were not enough, while the Whitlam Government was taking this action the European Economic Community was subsidising agricultural production and so the EEC market for Australian dried fruit was effectively eroded. That market for Australian dried fruit fell from 40,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes. As if that, too, were not enough, the EEC was also building up an enormous wine lake as a result of its subsidised wine production. That wine lake has now flooded into the United States of America and so in the USA those Thomson seedless grapes, known in Australia as sultanas, that would have been produced for wine production were directed out of the wine market and were pushed on to the dried fruit market. So the world dried fruit market was flooded by a USA product that was never intended to be on the world market. Of course that has been a matter of major embarrassment to Australian growers and is no fault of those growers. The legislation before the House is a further attack on these Australian growers, and that attack has been detailed by the honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Mallee. The first of the three Bills, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, proposes that the Corporation's membership be extended by two but the growers are still to be denied a majority voice. The second Bill, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill, changes the underwriting provisions and, as has been said, we are nervous about the way in which it excludes the currant and raisin crops from Australian dried vine fruit production. The third Bill, the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Amendment Bill, changes the equalization levy so that when the world price is low the domestic price will be low and when the world price is high the domestic price will be high. On the surface of it one may say that that is fair enough, and I would not challenge that generalisation. But this will produce in the dried vine fruit industry a measure of unprecedented instability because the variations in price will be enormous. It is these enormous price variations that will make it difficult for the industry to survive, because it is an industry with long lead times. A person does not get into it one year and out of it the next; if he is into it he is into it for 30 years and what happens to the market-place this year affects the viability of a property for at least the next 20 years. The industry has said: 'Let us have some measure of stability in the industry and let us have some measure of assurance that as we are producing the best product in the world we will be given conditions that will enable us to continue that sort of quality production'. I am conscious of the time restraint and I want to conclude by making one or two salient points. A point that ought to be reinforced but which has not been made in the debate is that Australia currently consumes more dried fruit per head of population than any other nation in the world. That tells us something about the Australian dried vine fruit industry. It has been diligent in its marketing and it has produced a product which Australians might reasonably be proud not only to sell but also to consume. The growers in the Sunraysia and Riverland areas were encouraged on to their properties by government action. We do not today make a plea to protect them but a plea that they be given a fair trading environment. We plead for a minimal injection of government funds that will enable them to survive the quite unfair agricultural trading climate that exists overseas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr DOBIE —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he accepts the judgment of the Melbourne Herald that the assets test not only discriminates against the aged but that it is also biased against the aged in that: An urban pensioner with a four hundred thousand dollar house and thirty thousand dollars in the bank . . . may receive the full pension. Yet, a country pensioner living in a twenty thousand dollar house, with farmland worth one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and nothing in the bank . . . is entitled to no pension at all. Does the Minister agree with these statements? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer firstly to that part of the question concerning the Melbourne Herald. The Melbourne Herald is a newspaper which, over the last several weeks at least, appears to me to have departed from the principles of responsible journalism. I would have thought that the very first tenet of responsible journalism is that the facts must be right. For a fortnight, in something like four editorials and articles on the first page of the newspaper almost every day, the Herald substantially got its facts wrong. That was underlined in its editorial of Monday, 29 April, when it said: There are, as we have said all along, two monstrous flaws. First, the test is a selective tax on thrift. It will remain so until the same rules are applied to all recipients of welfare. The theme of those articles over two weeks was that in fact the assets test related only to the age pension. As I pointed out to the Melbourne Herald, and as the Melbourne Herald was forced to acknowledge, in fact the assets test does not relate simply to the age pension; it relates to a whole range of pensions-the age, the invalid, the wives, the widows, the supporting parents, the spouse carers and the rehabilitation allowances and repatriation service pensions paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. So the Herald, which has had some reputation in this country, took two weeks to read the legislation and find out to whom the assets test applies. The second part of the honourable member's question concerned whether there was a bias against people within rural areas. I think honourable members ought to recognise-- Mr Peacock —Of course there is. You know there is. Mr HOWE —I am not at all surprised by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Before the introduction of the assets test the aged in rural areas received pensions in far greater proportion than those in corresponding areas in the cities because people with expensive houses in the cities are less likely to receive a pension because of the income test-that is, they tend to be more income rich as well as asset rich-and that still applies. If one looks at the proportions of people in rural areas who are still receiving the pension following the introduction of the assets test, one finds a massive disproportion. For example, in an area such as Tenterfield in the seat of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, more than 90 per cent of the aged are on full or part pension, whereas in an affluent urban area, such as Crows Nest in Sydney, the proportion is two-thirds. In the suburb of Toorak in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, the proportion is between 35 and 40 per cent. It is true that there are higher proportions of people in rural areas on the age pension, but what is not true is that the assets test is applied inequitably between urban and rural areas. There are very wealthy people, and indeed there have been very wealthy pensioners, in rural areas in this country. There are also very wealthy people, and there have been very wealthy pensioners, within the urban areas. Whatever else the Government has sought to do in relation to the assets test, it has sought to be equitable. I would have thought that is not an unreasonable principle to apply. I believe that if there were a little more honesty on the part of the Opposition it would think through a little bit of what its own rhetoric means; then we might see a little more understanding in relation to the assets test. Mr SIMMONS —I ask the Minister for Health whether he is aware of substantial delays in the payment of pharmacists' claims by the Department of Health. Are these delays caused by problems relating to the pharm-pay system? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that pharmacists will not have to wait several months to have their claims processed with the consequent cash flow problems? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Calare for his question. There have been regrettable delays in the payment of pharmacists' claims due to a number of factors beyond the effective control of the Department of Health. The new pharm-pay system has involved loss of productivity and recruitment and training problems which have affected the program. We have been plagued with industrial disputes and repetition strain injury has also affected the payment of those claims. Because the lag developed we took action in February to pay immediately 90 per cent of the claims without any assessment. Even this effort to deal with the lag proved insufficient, so from the beginning of April we paid 100 per cent without assessment and we are now rapidly catching up on that lag. April and May payments-that is, current payments-are being made within the 30-day period and we are confident that by the end of the month we will have caught up on all the 10 per cent lags. The formula we have used for paying 100 per cent of the claims has worked so well and proved to be so accurate that should any lag develop in the future we would immediately revert to that system to correct the problem. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it the case that, as of 4 April 1985, 1,286 applications had been received under the hardship provisions of the assets test but only 24 applications had been granted? Given the harshness manifested in these figures, what does the Minister intend to do about this matter? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I suppose one conclusion to be drawn from that is that if those figures are correct-I do not have them with me-there are a large number of people who, having applied under the hardship provisions, clearly fall outside the guidelines in relation to the assets test. To apply under the hardship provisions is not necessarily any evidence at all that people are in such a situation that they require to be paid a full pension by the Government. I am aware of a number of people who have applied under the provisions and who have very substantial assets, some well over the limit with assets in the order of $200,000 to $300,000. Of course the hardship provisions are there to ensure that people who are unable to achieve an income from an asset for very good reasons are treated sympathetically. There is no suggestion-I want to nail this allegation as strongly as I possibly can-and there has never been any suggestion that in the administration by this Government of the assets test it is seeking to force people in any sense to sell their homes. That is the reason the assets test excluded the home and curtilage from the very beginning. That is the reason that, apart from the hardship provisions and the review processes, designed to ensure that there is an objective determination of hardship, the loans scheme was introduced as part of the assets test scheme. I draw attention to one aspect of the loans scheme which seems to me to be extraordinarily generous. A great deal of the complaints that have been made about the assets test have not come from aged people but from children and dependants-indeed, future beneficiaries of the estates of pensioners. It is part of the provisions of the loans scheme- Mr Dobie —Not true. Mr HOWE —If the honourable member listens, he might learn something. It is part of the provisions of the loans scheme that, when the Government recovers the money advanced by way of loan following the death of a pensioner, an amount of $100,000 is not recovered as part of that process. It seems to me that in many of the circumstances about which there has been the greatest amount of bleating, involving very aged people, the loans scheme is a very appropriate means to ensure that people do not suffer any disadvantage and that they are not put in the position of not receiving their pensions. If some Opposition members who show so much apparent concern in this place were to draw attention to the operation of the scheme in certain circumstances it would be useful and would assist to resolve many of the problems that no doubt exist for many people. Mr CROSS —Can the Prime Minister inform the House as to what would be involved in holding the anti-union summit proposed by the Queensland Government? Mr HAWKE —It ought to be increasingly clear to all members of this House and to the people of Australia that the confrontationist tactics that have been adopted by the Premier of Queensland have already wreaked very substantial economic costs upon Queensland, a State which, I remind the House, is already at the bottom of the heap in terms of economic management as a result of the disastrous economic policies being pursued by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Queensland's economic performance, according to any relevant economic criterion one wants to take, is the worst in Australia. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is the worst economic manager and the Queensland Government is the worst State Government in the country. It is also time that the Queensland Government in general and the Premier in particular understood not only that have they been seen through by the workers of Queensland but also that, increasingly, the confrontationist tactics the Premier is adopting are not receiving the support of the Australian business community. It is very relevant that we should have seen today in the Australian Financial Review evidence of that repudiation by the Australian business community. There is a reference in the Financial Review to a recent study entitled: 'Control, Consensus or Chaos?' It was carried out by Professors Niland and Turner of the University of New South Wales. It is revealed that Australian business leaders favour the stability provided by the consensus approach of the prices and incomes accord. We have become accustomed to the fact that those opposite are interested not in facts, only in prejudices. However, we will put the facts before them. The study-a study of 219 top business executives-concluded that Australian corporate leaders prefer the predictability and stability of the co-operative approach to industrial relations that we as a Government have followed in this country since the beginning of 1983. The study-I repeat: a study of 219 top Australian business executives-concluded: They prefer a tripartite approach in which unions, along with governments, work together to formulate the key features of the framework. The concerns of 1981, when this study was undertaken, have real point in Queensland today. The study made this observation: Many managers saw the Fraser Government as inept in industrial relations because of ill-timed intervention in particular industrial disputes, which smacked of grandstanding rather than genuine efforts to get matters sorted out. The study went on to say: . . . some managers even suggested-- does this come as a surprise- that the Liberal-Country Party governments of the 1970s sought political advantage from industrial relations turmoil. The situation has not changed in Queensland today. We even had the remarkable observation on 27 April this year when the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Queensland Premier as having said that he had sacked 1,000 striking linesmen in February as a way to confront the Federal Government. That is the confrontationism of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland. He deliberately sacked 1,000 men. For what reason? To provoke confrontation with the Australian Government. The business community of Australia, as revealed by this independent study, has shown that it rejects the processes and principles of confrontation. I believe that, increasingly, it will become clear in Queensland that the Queensland business community rejects them also. It is about time that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Queensland Government came to their senses and started to negotiate so that the interests of the Queensland business community and the people of Queensland as a whole can be preserved and protected. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. I refer the Minister to the widespread disquiet among many pensioners about the over-valuations given to their land under the assets test. Are these valuations made under instructions from the Minister or his Department? If not, what is he prepared to do about it? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Upon the introduction of the assets test we suffered the kind of hysteria that was generated by members of the Opposition-the Liberal Party in particular-who made statements about SS men and the intrusion of privacy. That seemed to be advocated by many people in the Opposition. These statements made the question of valuations a very sensitive matter and caused needless concern to hundreds of thousands of aged pensioners who were never considered likely to be affected, never received a form and are never likely to be affected by the assets test in any way. It is true that a very high proportion of the applications for review and appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal turn on the question of valuation. The Government needs to take action in the area of revaluation, to ensure that whenever a pensioner requests-- Mr Peacock —What action are you going to take? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting across the table. Mr HOWE —The Leader of the Opposition is primarily interested in the question of the assets test from the point of view of cheap point scoring. He is not interested in the welfare of pensioners. Some people are concerned to hear the answer-- Mr Sinclair —It is time you started worrying about it. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party has interjected three times. I have asked him twice not to. I will warn him the next time. Mr HOWE —The honourable member has asked a question which I think deserves a serious answer. I have said that the Government recognises that in a large number of cases, where there is a review or an appeal, there is a need to ensure a comprehensive valuation. In those cases we require the written permission of the pensioner concerned because we do not seek, and never have sought at any stage in relation to the assets test, to intrude on anyone's property without permission. Some of the cases that have been beat up in the media have been cases where we have not been able to carry out a valuation because we have not had that written permission. Where that written permission is provided, we are seeking to ensure that those valuations are carried out as rapidly as possible. It is of major concern to the Government that the question of valuations ought to be resolved. I am trying to give an assurance to the House, if I am given an opportunity by the Opposition, that that is an area to which I believe we need to give particular attention to ensure that those revaluations occur as speedily as possible. I assure the honourable member that that will be done. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Prime Minister aware-- Mr Everingham —Been to sea lately? Mr LEO McLEAY —You're the bloke who ought to worry. Mr Everingham —Is this the next episode of Love Boat? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory that if he interjects again I will name him. Mr LEO McLEAY —I do not know what the interjections are about. I heard on the radio that it was a Federal Liberal Party member. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member will proceed with his question. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of recent fighting in Beirut and southern Lebanon, where many people, both Christians and Moslems, have been forced to flee for their lives, causing much distress to their relatives in Australia, many of whom live in my electorate of Grayndler? What steps will the Government take to bring an end to the fighting in Lebanon? Mr HAWKE —I would have expected that the seriousness of the matter involved in the question asked by the honourable member for Grayndler would have had the effect of bringing to an end the hilarity on the other side of the House. Certainly it reflects no credit on the Leader of the National Party that, when the fighting in Lebanon was referred to, he said: 'It has nothing to compare with the fighting in Sydney Harbour'. It is an absolute disgrace. Mr Sinclair —What were you giggling for? Mr HAWKE —He said that and he knows it. If he had any decency, he would withdraw. Mr Porter —So would you, to the back of the House. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker. Mr Goodluck —He never said that at all. I am sitting right behind him. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin will cease interjecting. Mr Goodluck —That was exaggerated. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin will not argue with the Chair, or he will be outside arguing. Mr Goodluck —I will be better out there than in here. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr HAWKE —I believe that no Australian- Mr Sinclair —When are you pulling the troops out of the Sinai? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. If he interjects again, I will name him. Mr McVeigh —She might name you, Bob. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I also warn the honourable member for Groom. Mr HAWKE —I would hope that the House would cease the uproar and hilarity which have been associated with the asking of this question. I ask honourable members on both sides of the House to realise the enormity of the tragic situation which has developed in Lebanon, which I believe deserves, and I think does receive, the attention of all honourable members. On behalf of the Government, and I believe on behalf of the whole of the Parliament, I express our great distress at the news of the continued violence which is taking place in that tragic country. We are certainly concerned at the recent events in the south of Lebanon, where as many as 20,000 Christians are reported to have fled their homes and to have sought refuge in the city of Jezzine and other towns in the region. We can only regret that the opportunity presented by the withdrawal of the Israeli forces has not been taken to restore Lebanese Government authority in the south. We are also seriously concerned at the escalation of the fighting in Beirut. The Government expresses its deepest sympathy to the very large Lebanese community in Australia, many of whom have relatives in Lebanon. We are very conscious of the anxiety and suffering that they are going through at this time. Despite what has gone on before, I believe I can say on behalf of all members of the Parliament that we would want the members of the Lebanese community in Australia to know that our thoughts are with them as they go through this period of suffering and anxiety. I emphasise, because of what has gone before, that that is said on behalf of all members of this Parliament. We appreciate of course that there is no simple solution to the problems in Lebanon. No one has a magic wand to wave which will resolve those problems. It is obvious, but it should still be said, that the first requirement is for an end to the fighting there, and certainly we from Australia call on all parties in Lebanon to exercise maximum restraint because it is only when the guns are silenced in that country that efforts can then be undertaken aimed at securing a national reconciliation through consultation and a peaceful settlement of outstanding problems. We believe that agreement among the present warring factions is the only basis on which Lebanon's independence and sovereignty will be respected. We all recognise that one of the great tragedies of Lebanon is that it should have become the battleground on which foreign forces conduct their battles openly or by proxy. We believe strongly that all external interference in Lebanon's internal affairs should be brought to an end. If such necessary preconditions were to be met, negotiations could then begin for a long term political settlement of that country's problems. In that respect I have noted suggestions that there should be a cantonal system of government along the lines of Switzerland. All one can say about that proposal, which has been floated in certain quarters, is that any such proposal would of course require the agreement of all of Lebanon's confessional groups. I conclude by saying that the Government of Australia pledges to use all its influence, all the influence that we can bring to bear in the United Nations and in other international bodies, to pursue efforts aimed at bringing to an end the fighting in Lebanon, which is a necessary precondition to those consultations and negotiations which we would all hope would bring an end to the continuing tragedy in that country. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. But first of all, I would concur with the remarks made by the Prime Minister on Lebanon and I would like to place that on the record. I am pleased to hear that the matter will be taken further, hopefully in the Security Council of the United Nations. I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he intends to amend the unfair and inequitable assets test legislation; if so, when and how? Mr HOWE —It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition should ask a question about altering the legislation because that reflects the divisions which are present within the Opposition parties in this respect. I shall just go over recent events. On 5 May the Leader of the Opposition stated that the assets test should be repealed. On 1 May Senator Messner said that the Opposition had rejected the notion of seeking amendments designed to correct anomalies in the assets test legislation, but on 5 May the Leader of the National Party called on the Government to introduce amendments to the assets test without delay. He said that the only way the Hawke Government could make up would be to amend the test and to do it soon. So, on the one hand we have the Leader of the Liberal Party saying: 'Let's get rid of the assets test'; on the other hand we have the Leader of the National Party saying: 'No, it is not so much that we want to get rid of it, we want to have it amended'. On 27 April the Leader of the Opposition said the Opposition had always opposed an assets test, yet if we go back to 27 November the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: I am personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare. He attacked the method of the test proposed but quite clearly favoured the re-introduction of an assets test. That is why the honourable member for Bennelong has had very little to say on this issue. He, amongst some of his colleagues, is interested in thinking through the consistent elements of a policy in relation to welfare. As we saw when the Liberal Party announced its welfare policy in the last election, the informed reaction to that was: 'Well, what does it really mean?'. It did not have any cutting edge because essentially the Liberal Party has not made up its mind. The Opposition cannot decide between the attitudes of the Liberal Party and the National Party, between the wets and the dries or between the people in the country and those in the city. It does not matter where one goes, one finds people with different attitudes. There is one thing, however, that has always held this Opposition together and indeed has held the conservative parties together over the years. If they can see an opportunist short-term political advantage they will go for it because that is what they are about-cynical opportunism. Mr GEAR —Is the Special Minister of State aware that the stated purpose of the proposed electoral redistribution in Queensland is to give fair representation? As this is also the basis for boundaries drawn in the Legislative Council in Western Australia, where an imbalance of 11:1 exists, can the Minister inform the House whether the rationale and procedures for distribution of electorates in the Commonwealth Parliament coincide in any way with those of the Queensland and Western Australian parliaments? If not, can he say whether elections for the Australian Parliament give fair representation? Mr YOUNG —I think that every member of this House can be proud that the redistribution which took place last year and which was responsible for the election of this Parliament has no relationship at all to what will happen in Queensland under the redistribution in that State. The provisions of the Federal redistribution require that for each State there is an average set and seats must have enrolments which are up to or plus or minus 10 per cent from that average. Such boundaries must be fixed with the aim that in three and a half years time there shall be equality of voters. As of February of this year, the seat most above the quota, just slightly above 10 per cent, is that represented by that excellent member, the honourable member for Phillip. The one most below the quota in the national Parliament as of February was 9.29 per cent below and it is represented by another excellent member, the honourable member for Rankin. He is in a very fast growing area and obviously he will be there for a very long time. It is interesting to note what is happening in Queensland. The President of the Liberal Party of Queensland, who sits in this Parliament, might have different views from some of his colleagues when they step up to the dispatch box giving their great support to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen for everything that he does in Queensland. The National Party in Queensland will never destroy the Labor movement but it is out to destroy the Liberal Party and it is doing so very successfully. One only has to ask the honourable member for Ryan or the honourable member for Moncrieff because they could tell in detail what is happening to the Liberal Party as a result of its continuing capitulation to the National Party over so many years. Lodgement of Annual Returns This Bill amends section 263 of the Companies Act to provide that the annual return of a company may be lodged with the NCSC at any time between the end of the company's financial year and one month after the date of the annual general meeting held in respect of that financial year. The effect of this amendment wil be to make the ending of a company's financial year the event which creates the requirement to lodge an annual return, rather than the holding of the annual general meeting as at present. Thus, although the existing maximum time limits wil continue to apply for the lodgement of annual returns by the majority of companies, companies will be able to lodge their returns prior to the date of their annual general meetings if they so desire. There is, nevertheless, one small group of companies that will be required to lodge their annual returns within a shorter period of time than at present. These are the companies that have established a branch share register outside Australia. As these companies have to obtain information from their branch share registers for the purpose of completing their annual returns, they are currently allowed an extra month in which to lodge those returns with the NCSC to compensate for communication delays between Australia and other parts of the world. However, with modern communication facilities, information can be obtained from overseas almost as quickly as from other parts of Australia. Accordingly, there appears to be no reason why these companies cannot lodge their annual returns within the same time limits as are imposed on other companies. Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson was interviewed, as is his wont, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 25 March and he was asked about the redistribution. He was asked about the number of seats, whether more seats were needed in Queensland and whether Queensland's population had increased. This is a bit like the comment that the Minister for Primary Industry quoted yesterday-just have a listen to this. He replied: Oh, it is increased a lot and growing dramatically, just as our skyline has changed dramatically; huge buildings, you can see them everywhere you go round the city. I saw some today. So there is redistribution because Joh looks out his window and sees all these buildings going up in Brisbane. The ironical feature about the redistribution is that the people who work in those buildings or live around them are not going to be given any more say in Queensland; in fact they will be given less say. Following the redistribution there will be seven new seats in Queensland. There will be four electoral zones-four different types of citizens in Queensland. In the heavily populated south-eastern zone, taking in Brisbane with all the beaut big new buildings, there will be four new seats. It has been suggested that the redistribution will also wipe out four existing inner city seats, making eight new seats in the outer metropolitan and Gold Coast areas-two National Party strongholds. At the moment the Nationals hold 19 of the 47 seats. There will be one new seat in the western and far northern zone. This will replace the existing Labor held seat of Mount Isa, which is coming out of the provincial zone. Mount Isa is being split down the middle-as any rational redistribution would do to a city!-making Mount Isa two bush seats leaning towards the Nationals. The Nationals presently hold six of the seven seats in the zone. In the country zone there will be two extra seats, probably just to the west of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, making them almost certainly National Party seats. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr YOUNG —Thirteen of the 15 seats in the zone are presently National. When National Party members say 'hear, hear!' they should look down at the honourable member for Kooyong and keep saying it. He is the person they need to keep reminding about what is happening in Queensland. In the provincial city zone there will be no change in overall numbers, but there will have to be one new seat to make up for the loss of Mount Isa. This extra seat is likely to be in the Mackay-Prosperpine area, and will be National. Labor presently holds 10 of the 13 seats in this zone. The quotas for the zone are: South-eastern, 19,300; country 13,000; western and far northern, 9,500; and provincial, where Labor holds most of the seats, 19,000. The western and far northern zone electorates are allowed to deviate by more than the 20 per cent tolerance required in the other zones. The Premier's-- Mr Cadman —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Under standing order 145 the answer must be relevant to the question. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Cadman —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. The question asked the Minister to relate the situation in Queensland to the Commonwealth. He has not dealt once with the Commonwealth in his reply. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister did deal with the Commonwealth. I distinctly heard him. Mr Cadman —Are you answering for him. Mr YOUNG —At the last election the Premier's seat-- Mr Keogh —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I distinctly heard the honourable member for Mitchell reflect on the Chair. He referred to 'you answering for him' I think that he should be made to withdraw the reflection on the Chair. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I did not hear what the honourable member for Mitchell said. If his comment reflected on the Chair, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr Cadman —Madam Acting Speaker, if my comment reflected on the Chair, I withdraw it. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr YOUNG —At the last election the Premier's seat of Barambah had an enrolment of 11,600, while the largest Labor seat had an enrolment of 25,300. Far more interesting, of course, is that under the redistribution there will be a new seat in central Queensland, which could be tailor made for you know who-the son of the Premier. So he might be joining us. This is a serious matter. It has taken a long time for this Parliament to be persuaded on this issue, over the heads of the National Party members who believe that the only way a parliament can be constituted is by giving weighting to rural electorates. That is not the way it should be done. Once we deviate from one vote one value, we can go right down to the extremes of the late Sir Thomas Playford or the present Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. There is only one way for the Australian people to go and that is to elect their parliaments on one vote one value. If parliamentarians from country areas have larger areas to look after, the parliaments should provide them with the facilities to look after those areas. If parliamentarians in the metropolitan areas which have increased numbers of people have a lot of non-citizens living in their electorates, they should be given the facilities to look after their electorates as well. There is no excuse for trying to manipulate the electorates as the Queensland Premier is doing in dividing Queensland into four separate classes of persons in order to continue his reign in Queensland and continue the further destruction of the Liberal Party which he set about some years ago. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed again to the Minister for Social Security. My previous question was related to the assets test legislation, and I specifically asked him whether he intended to amend the unfair and inequitable assets test and in particular the assets test legislation and, if so, when and how? Mr HOWE —When the Government introduced the assets test it gave a commitment that the assets test would be monitored, that it would be constantly subject to the attention of the Government, and that as we had an experience to evaluate we would evaluate that experience very carefully. We promised particularly in terms of the administration of the assets test that we would ensure that it was administered in the most sensitive manner. That commitment remains. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977, I present the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee first annual report for the period 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present a corrigendum to the Foreign Investment Review Board report for 1983-84, which was tabled in Parliament on 17 April 1985. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the first research report of the Australian Electoral Commission on the character and level of informal voting in the 1984 election for the House of Representatives. I also present the supporting volume of statistics. A copy of the report was sent direct to all honourable members by the Commissioner on 6 May 1985 and will make very valuable reading during the break. Motion (by Mr Keating) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the USA by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Humphreys and Mr Jacobi. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys,Mr Langmore and Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan and Mr Hicks. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many 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 Moore and Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the house of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in ''outer metropolitan'' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse effect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both the country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of certain undersigned Australian and overseas students respectfully showeth that: 1. The Overseas student program brings in a multitude of cultural, political and educational benefits as well as a net financial gain of A$5 million p.a., in foreign exchange. (Ref: Goldring Report) 2. Overseas students are under financial constraints. Most depend on their families for this financial support. The Goldring Report found 62% of Overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than A$15,000. 3. The imposition of high Overseas student charges will deprive many Overseas students from getting a tertiary education and qualification in Australia despite their academic abilities. High charges will determine education in Australia for Overseas students on economic grounds. 4. The imposition of sudden and drastic increases in visa charges will also particularly disadvantage those current students, many of whom will be forced to discontinue their studies. 5. Overseas students do not displace local students. They represent a mere 3.4% of tertiary students. (Goldring Report) 6. The fluctuations and uncertainty in Overseas students policy has led to uncertainty, stress and fear in Overseas students. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray that: 1. The Government re-affirm a commitment to its policy that supports the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries through access to Australia's education and training resources. 2. The Government formulate a consistent and considerate policy concerning Overseas students. 3. The Government reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the legislation of such a high increase in visa charges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia possesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently unco-ordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 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 been 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher, in Queensland respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ''windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. the people of Australia are already being subjected to the oppressive tax policies of the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the Hawke Socialist Government. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I wish to inform the House of the Government's decision to sign a reciprocal agreement on social security with Italy and to start negotiations towards social security agreements with other interested migrant source countries as soon as practicable. I am very pleased to be able to announce Australia's preparedness to sign a social security agreement with Italy and I hope that the Italian Government will likewise announce its preparedness to sign shortly. This is a most significant decision for people with links with both Italy and Australia. It is also important for all migrants, whatever their country of origin, and for all those people who choose to spend part of their lives outside Australia. The basis on which the agreement with Italy has been negotiated shows that it is possible to negotiate reciprocal social security arrangements linking the Australian social security system and the very different type of social security systems which operate in most other countries. Now that we have bridged this gap in relation to Italy, I am confident that we can do likewise with other migrant source countries. For migrants to this country this decision is one of the most important to be taken by any government since the commencement of large scale immigration. Honourable members will be aware that Australia has had reciprocal social security arrangements with New Zealand since 1943 and with the United Kingdom since 1954. We are now to have, at long last, comprehensive reciprocal agreements with non-English speaking countries. The type of agreement I am proposing is an improvement on the agreements we currently have, in that it better co-ordinates the social security coverage available from the countries involved. Reciprocal social security arrangements are important for migrants and all Australians who choose to move between Australia and other countries. To understand their importance, I should point out that most social security systems, unlike Australia's, are contribution based. Many migrants coming to Australia have previously paid compulsory contributions to such systems. However, in a lot of cases, people would not have contributed for sufficient periods to allow them to meet essential minimum contribution requirements. This means that they have effectively lost those contributions. Reciprocal agreements would enable pensions to be paid by agreement countries on the basis of those contributions. In other words, when these migrants reach pensionable age or need income security support for such contingencies as widowhood or invalidity, they would be able to receive some payment from the country concerned. Again I emphasise that this is important not only for migrants but also for all Australians who have, at some time during their working life, lived abroad and contributed to an overseas social security system. Under an agreement an Australian who worked overseas and made contributions to an overseas system may also receive some pension as a result of those contributions. The number of people who might benefit from the reciprocal agreements is very significant. It is estimated that, if Australia can successfully negotiate agreements with the major migrant source countries, about one million people could benefit over the next 20 years. Agreements are also important for the community as a whole. Payments of foreign pensions represent an inflow of foreign currency which assists the balance of payments. Agreements also have direct budgetary implications, to the extent that such payments are taxable and are taken into account under the income test arrangements of Australia's social security legislation. Of course, to obtain these benefits, Australia would be required to grant its pensions in the agreement country concerned. I now want to refer to those migrants to Australia who want to retire to their home country or some other country before they reach Australian age pension age. Under Australia's social security law, pensions generally cannot be granted outside Australia. These people, who now leave before gaining a pension from Australia, cannot receive a pension overseas. Under reciprocal agreements such people may be entitled to receive an Australian pension payment proportional to the period of their residence in Australia. Furthermore, because agreements are reciprocal, people may also become entitled to some payment or increased payment from countries which are parties to agreements. Paying a proportional pension abroad on the basis of residence in Australia is a new concept in this country. Proportional portability was announced by the previous Government in 1983 as the basis for negotiations of reciprocal agreements and it has been used as the basis for negotiations with Italy. Australia's social security law provides for universal flat rate pensions which are needs based, whereas, in most other countries, the amount of pension payable is largely dependent on the level of contributions made; the longer the contributory period and the greater those contributions, the higher the pension. In order to provide a rational basis for reciprocity it will be necessary to amend the law governing social security payments outside Australia so that the level of Australian pension payable abroad reflects the length of residence a person has had in Australia. I propose to bring forward for Parliament's consideration in the Budget session the necessary changes to the law. In the meantime I will be consulting members of the Federal and State ethnic communities councils of Australia about these changes, and agreements in general; and with representatives of ethnic communities about the specific agreements. These consultations have already commenced. What I would like to emphasise is that this legislation will only come into effect when Australia has as many reciprocal agreements as practicable ready to sign. Pensioners now overseas will not be affected. Proportional payment of pensions overseas and reciprocal agreements go hand in hand. The Government is keen to ensure that the very great advantages of reciprocal agreements flow to the majority of migrants as soon as possible. I believe that proportional portability, when linked with agreements, is a very reasonable concept. I can appreciate, because it is a new concept within the Australian system, that it may be difficult to understand readily. It is, however, a concept on which most international agreements on social security are based. It recognises that both Australia and any other country where a person has worked, share responsibility for income support. It also recognises that this responsibility is limited to the amount of time spent in each country. Reciprocal agreements will assist Australia and its agreement partners to meet social security responsibilities more compre- hensively. The present arrangements Australia has for social security payments overseas fall short of a comprehensive coverage. For some people, Australia's position is unduly harsh and for others, it is overly generous. I have referred already to the unfair treatment of those who have left Australia-those people who cannot at present be granted an Australian pension because they have left. Some of those people may have spent the greater part of their lives here. Under the reciprocal agreement with Italy, Australia would be able to pay a pension to such people now living in Italy and reciprocal arrangements with other countries would enable Australia to pay pensions to such people in those countries. To determine each country's responsibility for social welfare payments, it is necessary to set a period for maximum payment from any one country. Most countries set around 40 years as the period necessary to qualify for maximum payment. The Australian Government has decided to set 35 years as this period. In other words, to qualify for a maximum Australian pension overseas it would be necessary in future to have resided in Australia for 35 years during working life. The government believes that where a person has spent less than 35 years in Australia it is over-generous to pay a full Australian pension overseas. The equitable and affordable solution is for Australia to follow the pattern set by most income security systems throughout the world and to pay its pensions abroad on a proportional basis. To effect such a change the Government will need to introduce legislation to change the current arrangements for paying pensions overseas. The need for the change was recognised by Senator Chaney when he was Minister for Social Security and this Government will carry it through. Members of the Italian community have been consulted during the negotiation of the reciprocal agreement and they and the Italian Government understand Australia's position on proportional portability. Consultations are continuing and I believe the Australian community as a whole will accept this new package for payments of pensions overseas. I now turn to some of the main provisions of the agreement with Italy. This agreement would enable periods of residence in Australia to be added to periods of contributions in Italy and, if needed, the total of these periods can be used to gain eligibility for pensions from both Italy and Australia. The minimum period of residence or contributions required under the agreement by either country would be generally one year. Legislation governing the payment of a pension by Australia under this agreement will generally follow the provisions of the Social Security Act. There are some important differences, however, in the way in which Italian pension payments would be treated under the Australian income test. The agreement would provide that where Australia pays a part pension overseas, only a proportion of the Italian pension payable would be taken into account under the income test. Where Italy pays a supplement to top up its pension to the minimum Italian level, such a supplement would, except in some special circumstances, be exempted from the income test. Reciprocity arrangements will effectively mean that people who have spent part of their life in more than one country will receive a package of pensions consisting of part pension from each country. Within Australia, it is possible that the sum of the part pensions payable would be below the pension currently paid by Australia. This would be unacceptable in Australia and accordingly, the agreement with Italy would provide that, where necessary, the pension paid by Italy will be topped up to the level of the Australian pension. Australia would be prepared to agree to similar arrangements under agreements with other countries. The agreement also provides for administrative arrangements so that each country will assist the other, not only in relation to payments under the agreement, but also in relation to payments made under existing provisions. I believe that the proposed agreement with Italy has many benefits for Italians residing in Australia and for Australians residing in Italy. The Government is committed to ensuring its effective implementation as soon as possible and to seeking agreements with other countries so that similar benefits can be passed on to other ethnic groups and people who have moved between these countries and Australia. The importance of this matter has been recognised by this Government. Because of the major differences between the Australian and overseas social security systems there are considerable technical difficulties to overcome. Now that we have a model agreement which overcomes many of these difficulties, I am confident that great progress will be made in the future and that we will have the bipartisan support of this House for these important developments. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —by leave-The matter before the House is not something on which I want to take a lot of time, because the statement suggests that legislation will come into this House in the Budget session. That will be the opportunity to look at the whole legislation, and what it means. Obviously, in the two hours in which I have had the paper, I have not been able to plan a full response. It would be more effective at that later time. The agreement comes at an appropriate time, because some people in the electorate, particularly of Italian descent, have been making representations concerning the part of a pension to which they are entitled from Australia, if they have lived here and gone back home. I understand that the present arrangement is that they have to come back to Australia and reside here for one year before they can become entitled to the Australian pension. That matter would probably be looked at very favourably by the Italians in our society. The agreement comes on the heels of two others, one with New Zealand and one with Great Britain. I shall make a few comments concerning implementation. I notice that 35 years of working life has been set as the maximum. I have not seen anything in respect of a minimum working period. I believe there would have to be a base period before people could claim-for instance, if they were out here for six or 12 months. It would be fair to impose a basic limit, over which a person could work on a proportional basis. There is also the complaint-the statement probably corrects this in many ways-that an Australian pension paid overseas represents a greater proportion of average weekly earnings in the country of receipt than it does in Australia. The statement says that there is a minimal topping up as far as an Australian pension supplement to Italy is concerned, and vice versa. I wish to point out that there are problems paying Australian pensions to people who reside overseas and rely solely on the Australian pension, if that pension represents a greater proportion of average weekly wage earnings in that country than in Australia. I repeat the comment made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I believe that the legislation contains machinery clauses that have to be addressed, as far as the age pension is concerned, such as if an assets test is to be applied in the country of origin, how would this be determined? Would it be on exactly the same basis as in Australia? First, will it apply? Will it apply on the same basis as it applies in Australia, who will make the valuation and under what terms? I turn to another problem, particularly in relation to Britain, where we have a reciprocal arrangement, where pensions are paid partly by Britain and are supplemented in Australia. There has been a great deal of concern from some people over the last six months about getting their pensions remitted to Australia; first, because of the strike in the head office of the Department of Health and Social Security in Britain and, secondly, because of the uncertainty of mail deliveries. I know of a migrant who, at the moment, is entitled to a full pension on a part time basis from both governments, but she is not receiving the pension from Great Britain on which she is means tested. In the light of the record of direct payments that the Department of Social Security has just been through-successfully, I understand-I wonder whether there could not be a better arrangement made in the payment of these pensions? Could they be paid in one sum, either by the British social security system or the Australian Department of Social Security, with an arrangement that any difference be adjusted from time to time? That is a practical difficulty. I imagine that the same difficulty will occur, once pensions are determined in part by both governments, as to people getting that pension as an income supplement in the week or the fortnight in which they are entitled to it. There was not an actual costing on the exercise, but, by the time the legislation is through, the House should have available details of cost estimates, or what the reciprocal arrangements will mean. Also, if there are any changes in the Budget to the taxation laws by that time, such as were suggested in this morning's Press, of a 10 per cent tax on the lower levels, would it be necessary to have a withholding tax on those pensions before they left Australia? There are probably quite a few other items that would naturally flow from the statement, but in view of the fact that legislation will come into the House I shall leave my comments on that matter. I ask the Minister just to address himself to those few points which are not covered in his statement but which will become real issues once the legislation comes before the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.10) —Madam Acting Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. Today, on the desk of the post office in this building, there is a notice which states: Attention Union ban on all mail despatches including priority paid and express courier to Queensland until 13 May. This Government, through Australia Post which is an instrumentality of the Government, has given authority, presumably, for a ban against members' mail addressed to their constituents in Queensland. As such it constitutes a breach of the privilege of this Parliament and I would ask you, Madam Acting Speaker, to consider the matter in relation to the obligations of the Standing Orders and the responsibility of the Parliament and the Government. I suggest that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges to consider what action should be taken against Australia Post and against the Australian Government. I tender to the Parliament the evidence of this breach of privilege. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.11) —Madam Acting Speaker, I do not wish to interfere with the raising of this matter of privilege, which is for you to determine of course, but could you add to it and ask how the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) knocked off the gear from the post office? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with the practice in these matters I will give consideration to the issues raised by the Leader of the National Party and I will advise the House of my decision in due course. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing unjust imposition on Australian families of the Government's punitive assets test. 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 place- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —I was surprised that the 22 members opposite who were coddling their consciences publicly regarding the assets test were not standing to support us in our raising of this matter of public importance today. In fact, if ever there were a need to raise a matter of public importance in this Parliament, it would be today. Throughout Question Time the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) backed and filled and discussed the whys, howfores and moreovers of the assets test at length-I started to conclude that the only thing that is a problem with it is the 'Howe' rather than the whys and wherefores-but no decision was taken to amend the legislation. The Minister had two opportunities near the end of Question Time to say that he would amend the legislation to eradicate the unfairness, the confusion and the punitive and discriminatory nature of this legislation; yet he did not do so. We have raised this matter today and we do not see one member opposite who has complained publicly-allegedly there are 22 of them-about the effect of the assets test on their pensioners. It seems to me that they are more preoccupied with perhaps trying to save their seats rather than looking after the savings of pensioners. The fact is that since the assets test came into effect on 21 March this year it has become clear that it is punitive and discriminatory in practice and wrong in principle. That is why we are seeking its repeal in a Bill which I have given notice of. I just said that the assets test was punitive, discriminatory and wrong in principle. Let me say just what each of these means. The assets test is punitive because it robs elderly people of their pensions and reduces their living standards simply because, through a lifetime of hard work or thrift, they have created assets to provide them with independent and modest comfort in their retirement. Until this Government came along Australians were encouraged to put something aside for their retirement, to have a nest egg to give them a degree of independence. Now generations of Australians are being penalised for what they have been encouraged to do. I also said that the assets test is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it makes unjust distinctions between city and rural pensioners, between those who own their own homes and those paying rent, and between those who can look after themselves and those who, through age or infirmity, seek to live with, say, their families or in retirement villages. I said it is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle because the assets test is a retrospective tax on the elderly. For the 50,000 Australian men and women affected by the assets test 21 March was the day on which the Government changed the rules. Mr Hodgman —A black day. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, it was a black day. From that day the assets that they had accrued during their working lives became not a reward but a punishment. From that day the property they might have bought years before, to retire to, became for them no longer an asset but a liability. From that day their savings and their investments, carefully put together over years of effort and sacrifice-they were not enjoying two high incomes as were members of the Minister's family-and after scrimping and saving as the overwhelming majority of Australians in that middle earning group do, not at one or other end of the scale, which is the nature- Mr Howe —You don't have a bone of principle in your body. Mr PEACOCK —You are still engaged in your class war mentality. When you claim that you are rethinking a matter you are merely rearranging your prejudices, and you know it. Unless you get out of your mind the class war mentality and recognise what is happening in the Australian community you will not recognise that from that day I mentioned you are also causing an enormous amount of confusion and anxiety. That is why the assets test, apart from being punitive and discriminatory, is wrong in principle. It taxes not present income and effort. It is not a tax on present income and effort. Pensioners throughout their lives have been taxed on all their work and effort. Now when they retire they are taxed on their past sacrifice and their savings. A socialist, as a member of a redistributive government-even a member of the Centre Left has said that it is a high taxing policy-may justify it because it is a tax on the elderly. But we will not abide by it. It is the sacrifice and the savings made during people's working lives which produce whatever assets they may seek to provide for their retirement, and they are being penalised for that. It is fundamentally wrong in principle to punish people financially, as the legislation which the Minister refuses to amend does, because they sought to provide for their future in the belief that any assets they created would eventually be free for them to use or dispose of as they wished without penalty and without hardship. That is the basic reason why we have said that the assets test should be repealed. There are other reasons and among them is the Government's own confusion about the legislation which, in its present form, could be described as assets test mark four. Honourable members may remember that we had mark one in August 1983, mark two in December 1983, mark three in the shape of the report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Incomes and Assets Test, and mark four in the revised version announced on 1 June 1984 and passed on 10 September. We now seek its abolition but it appears that there will be a mark five of some sort, not by repeal of the legislation evidently but by some fiddling of bureaucratic regulation. As far back as 22 February 1984 the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) acknowledged the faults in the original legislation when he said: It has become clear that there is continuing and justifiable uncertainty about whether the Government has yet found the best way to implement legislation on an assets test in a fair and equitable manner. Honourable members should just bear in mind the words 'fair and equitable'. I put it to the Minister and indeed to the man who mouthed the words, the Prime Minister, when he used the words 'fair and equitable' in relation to the assets test. Is it fair and equitable that a pension in the city with a $200,000 house and $50,000 worth of assets keeps the pension, but a retired farmer with $50,000 house and land worth allegedly $200,000 loses it? The answer is no. To use the Prime Minister's words, is it fair and equitable that pensioners who feel they have been unjustifiably affected by the assets test are, in effect, regarded by this Minister and the Government as guilty of having too many assets until they prove themselves innocent? They are guilty in his and the Government's own words of having worked hard, saved and put money aside. Their assets are the sum total of their working lives. This Government says it is fair and equitable that they be judged guilty for doing that until they prove themselves innocent in regard to those assets by way of appeal to tribunals or his Department. Is it fair and equitable, on the Government's own test, that the alternative to the assets test is the so-called pensions loans scheme which we correctly first identified as the pay as you die scheme, which it is. Fairness and equity were supposed to be embodied in the hardship provisions of the test. If we ask those who sought assistance under those provisions we will see what a bitter joke it has been to them. So stringent are the qualifications for assistance, as was indicated at Question Time today, that out of 1,286 applications received only 24 have been granted. Some fairness; some equity. If the Government thinks this is going to rub over the months and years ahead, it has another thing coming because people will not allow its ideological motives to seek some sort of equalising down in this community and to negate concepts of people being able to work hard and put money aside, as is their right in our sort of society as we see it. There might be a real cleavage in philosophic terms between the Government and ourselves on this question. We do not put this matter forward for votes, though we know we will get them. We put it forward because we believe people are entitled to work hard through their lives, improve their lot and have some benefit and independence on their retirement. Honourable members should bear in mind that in the Australia of today the people we are talking about who are being hit by this assets test are the people who, as children, suffered and endured the Depression. They are the people who, as young men and women, fought for this country in the Second World War. They then returned to help rebuild a peaceful and a prosperous nation. This is how this Government treats them when they are seeking peaceful and contented retirement. In this context, let me give one more example of the Government's callous hypocrisy. In South Australia some of the people hardest hit by the assets test are soldier settlers, the veterans who, after World War II, were granted as a reward for their service and their bravery 640 acres to build a new life-the soldier's square mile as it was called. Few of them are rich and many of them have low incomes. But the assets test, because land values have been unrealistically assessed, will either rob them of their pensions, reduce their pensions or force them to sell up and leave their farms. This Government was generous in the circumstances. I will spit this out because it is deserving of being said. The Government made a great concession to these people. It said that their war decorations, however, were not to be regarded as an asset, so the pensioner veterans who are forced to walk off their farms at least can take their medals with them. Some generous, fair and equitable Government. The Australia that I grew up in was a nation that had respect and genuine concern for our elderly citizens. I was taught, as were so many Australians, that one of the higher purposes in public life, one of our supposedly great achievements of the past was that we led the world in our care of and our compassion for the elderly. I am proud to belong to a party which helped to build a society in which all those who worked hard, who made sacrifices and for years put money aside for the future at the expense of some immediate comfort would be helped and supported in retirement. My friends from the National Party will not mind my saying, because so many of their forebears were associated with this, that it was the Government of a very great Liberal, Alfred Deakin, which in 1908 passed the law establishing the old age pension. He did it with the full support of the Labor Opposition. It is a sad irony that now a Labor government is taking away that pension from so many Australians. It is a sad irony, to put it mildly. I am aware that certain honourable members are unhappy about this development. They have the opportunity now to do something about it. The real solution is not to amend the test though, if in the end that is what we have to do to help, we will do it; the real solution is to get rid of it. I will give the unhappy honourable members opposite the chance to stand with us now-if they have the courage-and support me as, at the expiration of some remarks on the matter of public importance, I move for the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.27) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent General Business Notice No. 1 given for Wednesday, 8 May 1985, being called on forthwith and a motion being moved for the second reading of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Is the motion seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr PEACOCK —I have moved the suspension of Standing Orders because it is clear from today that we will not get legislation to even amend the assets test, but we will have to revoke it by the measures that I have given notice of and the Bill that I have presented. I seek to suspend the Standing Orders in order that we can, in fact, proceed to a debate on the legislation. A motion to repeal Government legislation is not a matter to be lightly undertaken. But the repeal of the Government's assets test has become not only necessary, but also urgent, and for very compelling reasons: First, because it is creating manifest hardship and suffering for thousands of elderly Australians; second, because its discrimination between one group of pensioners and another is divisive and unjust; and third, because it is wrong in principle, as I said earlier, in that the assets test is a retrospective tax on savings and investment and it affects most cruelly people who have had no idea during their working lives that what they had put away for their retirement would become not assets, but liabilities. That is the need for honourable members opposite to support the Opposition and support this motion to suspend Standing Orders. Without the support of honourable members opposite, or without the 22 members who have coddled their consciences by either walking away or abstaining, I will not be able to get this Bill before the House and to the second reading stage. I ask honourable members opposite, if they have the courage of their convictions, or more than that, if they just believe that the assets test is wrong, to give support to this motion now. I recognise that they may have some problems with an Australian Labor Party that says it is all in favour of an assets test. Honourable members should remember there would not be an assets test today had this Government not legislated for it. So they may have a Caucus problem when it comes to the second reading. They may have to abstain on the Bill then. But 22 of them are concerned about the impact of the assets test and it will not cut across Labor policy for this Bill to be debated now, for it to be brought forward. I have the Bill; I am ready to go. I even have a third speech for the second reading, and a clause by clause analysis for the Committee stage. We are ready to go, as indicated by my moving this motion to suspend Standing Orders. As I say again, I take this action because the assets test strikes at the very heart of our concept of a compassionate and caring society. The assets test punishes thrift; it makes a mockery of sacrifice and of saving; and it ignores the contribution to Australia's security and prosperity made by a generation of Australians to whom we all in this House owe a profound debt. It goes further and visits that punishment on pensioners' families and their children by provisions which do not take into account the fact that the continuity of the family, its stability an its permanence is one of the mainstays of the Australian way of life. I gave earlier some examples. I have given many more examples in the House on previous occasions. Members on this side in Question Time and in general debate have given an abundance of examples, which demand the repeal of this cruel legislation. I saw the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the leader who scuttled from Queensland because he could not stand the heat of the kitchen there, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program wringing his hands with concern about the assets test and all that he and 21 others, led by the honourable member for Gippsland-I am sorry, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham); the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has done a great job in regard to the assets test-need do is support our Bill. The honourable member for McMillan has merely mouthed his concern. This man, who is normally so insignificant, told the Melbourne Herald-he is on the record-that he would fight to change this situation. It will be interesting to see what he says when the Herald rings him and asks why he will not even, by the sound of things, support this Bill getting to the second reading stage. Let us see how he gets out of that, how he explains his actions to all those pensioners in his electorate who are being hurt today. Every member of this House has heard of individual cases from constituents and knows about problems raised by the media. While they may be individual cases, this does not in any way diminish the extent of the anxiety, of the suffering and of the hardship which the unprincipled legislation which the Government has imposed on this nation has caused because that suffering is the cruel sum of quite singular injustices. The fundamental reason why I have put forward this motion today is to get my legislation into the Parliament and have it debated. It is why the existing statute should be repealed. There are other reasons, one of which is that the confusion and the anxiety which it has created among Australia's elderly citizens are matched only by that of the Government itself. The confusion is clear in the changes that have been made, under public pressure, to make the legislation work, to make it more just and equitable. This is an exercise in futility because, frankly, such legislation could never be just or equitable. That is why we want to introduce legislation to repeal the assets test; it is why I seek with this procedural motion to suspend Standing Orders so that we can get on from this day with the passing of this legislation. My colleague Senator Messner will ensure that it goes through the Senate; so, by tonight, we could eradicate the assets test. If the existing legislation is still in place when honourable members opposite go to bed tonight, it is they who will be responsible-every one of them. This is their opportunity to free pensioners from the anxiety that they are suffering at present. As I have said, by authoritative accounts 22 members on the Government side ought to be supporting us. This Bill will have the effect of rendering the assets test inoperative because it prescribes that, notwithstanding any of the provisions which implement the assets test, in determining a person's eligibility for a pension the value of that person's property or a spouse's property shall not be taken into account. That is why I say that the Government can end the assets test tonight. More steps will have to be taken; we have had to follow this simple procedure with the Bill and the provisions I have foreshadowed in seeking to suspend the Standing Orders because the provisions I have just referred to will render the assets test inoperative and of no effect. I am advised that it would then be desirable, after my Bill is enacted, to have further detailed amendments formally repealing each of the relevant sections of the legislation by which the assets test was implemented. If this Bill were to be passed here and in the Senate, the assets test from tonight could be inoperative and of no effect. Then, following the passage of our legislation, further provisions would be necessary to ensure that it could not be used. This punitive, unjust and unprincipled legislation has oft been described by us as striking cruelly into the whole spectrum of Australian society because not only elderly people are suffering but also sons and daughters to whom inheritance undoubtedly will be denied will suffer. There are also those now contemplating retirement who see that the modest rewards of a lifetime of saving and sacrifice will now be lost to them. Its effects are not only punitive but also in a fundamental sense, as I said earlier, retrospective because the assets test taxes savings and investments created when no such legislation existed, nor was such a test even remotely in prospect. There was no warning of it in the election campaign of 1983. People had no idea that this legislation was to be implemented. It was not in prospect because until this Government acted as it did, it was a main strand in the fabric of the Australian way of life that those who worked, saved and made sacrifices for their future and that of their children and who sought to create some modest comfort for their later years should be rewarded by a somewhat peaceful and contented retirement. In one stroke the Government has torn that fabric apart. So, as well as being wrong in principle, unjust in practice and totally inept in its administration, the assets test is un-Australian and that is why it should be repealed. That is why this motion to suspend Standing Orders should be supported. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.38) —I second this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I do so because over the last three or four months this Government has had every opportunity to heed the warning of its back bench, to heed the warnings of the editorials and to heed the warnings of the many pensioners affected throughout Australia and of those people who are concerned for the aged. The Government has had all of those warnings. As recently as today in Question Time, the questions were asked: What does the Government intend to do about it; what does it intend to do about the valuations; and what does it intend to do about legislating to change the situation? On all fronts we got negative answers, and that about sums up the attitude with which this Government has approached this very delicate situation. It is a matter of negativism and it is a matter of incompetence. We need only look back to find that this is the sixth version-it is called the mark four version-or sixth lot of changes to which this test has been subject. This shows the gross incompetence of the Government in bringing it in in the first place. One might also recall the Government's incompetence in employing 1,500 people within the Department of Social Security to administer this test who were later stood down because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went over the head of his former Minister for Social Security and said: 'We will delay it'. I wonder whether we should have been directing these questions today to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is now at the table, or the Prime Minister. Is the Minister as vague on what the Prime Minister intends in this regard as the previous Minister for Social Security was at the time when this test was introduced? We have provided the opportunity for the Government to come clean and tell us what it is going to do. We have seen the Australian people, and particularly the pensioners, suffer as a result of a commitment by the Socialist Left to have the assets test implemented in this Parliament. I want to make another reference in this regard. The Minister for Social Security who is pushing this legislation through is the same Minister who is not believing his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the security of pensions so far as a consumer-based tax is concerned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am saying that we should suspend Standing Orders to get rid of this legislation because we can see that it is another piece of legislation supported by the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party to bring in a capital gains tax in the next Budget. None of the sums have added up. After the incompetence of the Minister and the Government we cannot expect that they will. The suspension of Standing Orders also, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has said, gives an opportunity to bring into this House to declare where they stand those 22 members who have been running around Australia wringing their hands and saying that the Department of Social Security is not doing the job that it is entrusted to do. They do not appreciate that the Department is trying to implement the Labor Government's rubbish legislation. I wonder where the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and all the other members are who have been appearing on television saying: 'This is a bad thing. We should make changes'. We have given the Minister an opportunity of saying what the changes will be and he is not prepared to. We can get this measure through even without their support provided they do not come into this House to support the Minister and the Government on what they have already acknowledged is bad legislation. As I have said, the real fear is that the Government has not got its figures right in the first place. One of the Government's alternatives in the legislation-two were brought up in the House today-was in connection with what would happen with valuations. The Minister knows this, because I have had copies of six letters which constituents have sent to the Minister solely on the subject of the hardship provisions. The legislation mainly hinges on valuations, and we have seen valuations taking place on the basis of similar sales in similar areas or sales on subdivisional prospects. Pensioners retire on the basis that they will live on a piece of soil whose value they see related only to their lifetimes but the land is being valued at subdivisional prices, at double Valuer-General prices. As a result these people are suffering real hardship. The valuer might say, they are asset rich but, as the pensioners know, that piece of soil means the same to them as a two hectare allotment in the middle of town and all they want to do is retire on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.44) —It would not come as a surprise to the Opposition to know that we are not going to facilitate this motion. I must say that it is a unique day when the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are pleading the case for the disadvantaged in Australia. The reason we have so many disadvantaged people in Australia is that the Liberal and National parties ruled this country for so long. If they had not been in government we would not have had so many. They talk about pensioners. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) knows that what I say is true, as do the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and other members in this House. They all know that measures such as the assets test, whether they are introduced by a Labor government or a conservative government in the years ahead, will have to be implemented and decisions such as this will have to be taken so we can look after the pensioners who have nothing else to live on except the pension. They are the people who have to be looked after. They are the people who are living in abject poverty around this country and it was under the Liberal-National Party Government that their lifestyles slid into the poverty in which they reside today as a result of those opposite allowing the pension to drop from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to less than 23 per cent. So much for the former Government's care about old age pensioners in Australia. So it is with a whole range of other issues. The Opposition talks about wanting to save money. What about the record number of people who are waiting for public housing in this country? Where will the Opposition get the money from to provide the housing for people who cannot afford to buy their own homes? The honourable member for Bennelong was on AM this morning saying that the tax summit should not talk about just tax; it should talk about government expenditure. He said: 'We should chop back on government expenditure'. But the Leader of the Opposition wants the Government to spend more and more if he thinks there is a political point in it. He does not get up to say: 'Spend more on disadvantaged schools. Lift the pension for those who have nothing else to live on. Lift the unemployment benefit for those who have nothing else to live on'. No, he says: 'There is some political ploy and there might be a slight weakness in the assets test. Let's kick it for all it's worth to show that we stand for the disadvantaged'. The reason we have 22 people on this side of the House representing the rural areas is that the Opposition did not represent them properly. Let me pay tribute to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). He is an excellent Minister. The Opposition has been able to question him day after day, week after week and month after month about the assets test and it is so frustrated because it cannot get the answers it is trying to squeeze out of him. He has done an excellent job in giving the Opposition the answers that are required in defending the Government's policy. The Leader of the Opposition, in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders, said that this was not an issue in 1983. But it was an issue in 1984. It was one of the few things the Leader of the Opposition talked about-the assets test, capital gains, wealth taxes and death duties. He was like a mummy. Every time we saw him on the television he mentioned only four issues and he gave everybody in Australia the opportunity of voting on those issues. What did the people of Australia say? They said 'Labor is the party we are relying on to govern Australia from 1984 onwards, non-stop', because this is the only government that is looking at the problems Australia is going to face in the future. Of course the honourable member for Bennelong, John Howard, is right. If Malcolm had not trodden on his head he could have done a lot of these things when he was Treasurer in reordering the priorities of government expenditure and giving to the people who really need these things. Instead of carrying on with this nonsense the Opposition should look down the road at what sort of responsibilities it may have in government if the Australian people are foolish enough ever to put it back on this side of the House. Its 30-odd years of government were absolutely disastrous for Australia. It put over three million people into poverty and now it is squeaking about the way in which we are trying to reorder expenditure for the Government to assist those people who are really in need. How often do we hear the National Party talking about a few pensioners who might be caught up in the assets test and saying what a terrible thing it is? As the Minister has told the Parliament repeatedly, cases brought to him or the Department of Social Security complaining about the assets test are continually being monitored. How often do we hear the National Party talk about any other problem in Australia? It never talks about any problem other than subsidies. All it wants to talk about is subsidies to farmers. Regardless of anybody else being affected, the National Party asks for more roads and more money for the National Party. It has had the Liberals by the throat for 40 years getting all that pork-barrelling in the electorates. Now it cannot sustain that because a Labor Government is in power saying that the money has been spent in the areas where it is most required. That is the way it has to continue in this country until such time as we have undone all the problems the Opposition has imposed upon Australia, not just those in relation to pensioners. Mr Hodgman —You spend more on one long lunch than a pensioner spends in a week. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison, the biggest mouth in the southern hemisphere, should talk to some of the pensioners in Denison who have nothing else to live on except the old age pension and who have to pay a- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. You brought the honourable member for Dawson to order for not speaking to the motion, yet you are applying a different standard to the Minister at the table, who is not talking about why we should not suspend Standing Orders. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member for Moreton has made a point. I ask the Special Minister of State to remain relevant. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me reiterate: We are not going to facilitate this motion. I now get back to answering some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition said. I challenge any honourable member opposite to go into his or her electorate and talk to someone who has no income to live on except the old age pension and who is paying rent and see whether that person has enough to live on and whether money should not be diverted from other government expenditure to help such people. That is what this exercise is all about. It is about time the Opposition woke up to the fact that governments have to make more revenue available to the people who most require it. It is no good Opposition members belly-aching about these changes. I am telling them this: In 10 or 15 years time, when the Opposition gets back into power, if the honourable member for Bennelong, the honourable member for Mackellar and some of the other dries are still here, the Opposition will not change a thing. It will leave everything we do in place. It will do that because our decisions are sensible. It will not go back to the electors and say: 'We are going to spend another couple of billion dollars on social welfare'. There is no way in the world the Opposition will be caught on that hook. Not even the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) would be silly enough to fall for that-and that is saying something. The Opposition will look rationally at what we have done in government and at the priorities being set in the welfare area, which takes almost 25 per cent of the total Government Budget, and I am sure that it will come to the conclusion that, irrespective of the politics in it, it will have to make sensible decisions. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the honourable member a proper point of order, or is it spurious? Mr Donald Cameron —Is it in order for them to count 22 men of straw in this division? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order. If he raises any more spurious points of order he will be dealt with. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes 63 Noes 71 -- Majority 8 -- AYES Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B. Beale, J. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, Ian Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, David Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Howard, J. W. NOES Baldwin, P. J. Jones, Barry Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, Leo Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, Allan Dubois, S. G. Morris, Peter 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. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. PAIRS Hurford, C. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C. Holding, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Hayden, W. G. Smith, W. Jenkins, H. A. Sullivan, K. J. Tickner, R. E. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the business of the day be called on. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. Is it in order for this Minister, who has not been present during the debate, to gag the Minister for Social Security, preventing him from speaking on the matter of public importance? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Question put. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Peacock —I take a point of order. We will give leave to the Minister to make a statement. We are not in favour of the Minister being gagged. We will make time available for the Minister to explain why he took money from the elderly, but did not explain it in here. We are happy for him to make a statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr. J. G. Mountford) Ayes 71 Noes 58 -- Majority 13 -- AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jones, Barry Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, Leo Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, Allan Dubois, S. G. Morris, Peter 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. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. NOES Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F. Beale, J. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. 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, Ian Downer, 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. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, David Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. PAIRS Hurford, C. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C. Holding, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Hayden, W. G. Smith, W. Jenkins, H. A. Sullivan, K. J. Tickner, R. E. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of two Bills that I am introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the formal agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State companies legislation. Outline of Proposals During January this year the Ministerial Council released for public comment two proposed amendments to the Companies Act. One dealt with limited liability for the holders of units in unit trusts and the other was for the introduction of a new, shorter form of annual return. In respect of the first proposal, the Ministerial Council subsequently decided that the aims of the proposal could be more simply and appropriately achieved by administrative rather than legislative means. The legislative amendments which had been drafted to give effect to the proposal were necessarily complex and had the potential to operate inequitably. Instead the National Companies and Securities Commission will require, in appropriate cases, that a prospectus include a prominent statement as to whether the trust deed limits the liability of a unit holder, or whether the unit holder's liability is not limited. Investors may protect themselves by investing only in funds where the trust deed limits their liability to any unpaid subscriptions. The second proposal, which was released for public comment in January and which is the subject of the Bill that I am now introducing, involves a reduction of the regulatory burden on the business community by introducing more streamlined annual reporting obligations for the majority of companies. As originally released for public comment, the proposal contained four basic elements. The introduction of a new form of annual return which could be partially prepared by the State and Territory corporate affairs commissions as delegates of the National Companies and Securities Commission, using their computer facilities; the inclusion of key items of financial information in annual returns of all companies; relieving exempt proprietary companies that do not have their accounts audited of the obligation to lodge a copy of their accounts and other documents with their annual returns; and a reduction in the time limits for lodging annual returns with the corporate affairs commissions. It was intended that the reduction in the amount of information included in and annexed to an annual return would more closely tailor that information to the requirements of people searching company records. Public submissions generally welcomed the concept of the short form of annual return. However, there was opposition to any reduction in the time limits for lodgment of annual returns and the proposal that all companies should be required to disclose key items of financial information. Following its consideration of the views expressed in the public submissions, the Ministerial Council decided to proceed with a modified version of the original proposal. The principal changes were the retention of the existing maximum time limits for lodgment of annual returns and the retention of the existing exemption under which exempt proprietary companies that have appointed an auditor do not have to disclose any financial information. This proposal will be partly implemented by amending the Companies Act and partly by amending the Companies Regulations. The amendment to the regulations will provide for the introduction of the new form of annual return. Amendments to the regulations will also make the changes required to relieve exempt proprietary companies of the requirement to attach full accounts to their annual returns. I now turn to the two main aspects of the proposal which require amendments to be made to the Companies Act, namely, the new method of preparing annual returns and the timing of their lodgment with State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions. Preparation Of Annual Returns The Bill amends section 263 of the Companies Act to enable the corporate affairs commission to partially prepare an annual return for each company using information that each company has previously supplied to it. Upon receipt of a partially completed annual return from the corporate affairs commissions, companies will be required to make any amendments that might be required to the information inserted by the relevant corporate affairs commissions; insert any additional information that might be required; and lodge the completed document with the relevant corporate affairs commission within the period allowed under the Companies Act. The procedures outlined will apply only in those States and Territories where the delegates of the NCSC have automatic data processing facilities programmed for that purpose. Where delegates do not have ADP facilities, companies will be required to prepare their annual returns, using the new form, in much the same way as they do at the present time. Lodgment of Annual Returns This Bill amends section 263 of the Companies Act to provide that the annual return of a company may be lodged with the NCSC at any time between the end of the company's financial year and one month after the date of the annual general meeting held in respect of that financial year. The effect of this amendment will be to make the ending of a company's financial year the event which creates the requirement to lodge an annual return, rather than the holding of the annual general meeting as at present. Thus, although the existing maximum time limits will continue to apply for the lodgment of annual returns by the majority of companies, companies will be able to lodge their returns prior to the date of their annual general meetings if they so desire. There is, nevertheless, one small group of companies that will be required to lodge their annual returns within a shorter period of time than at present. These are the companies that have established a branch share register outside Australia. As these companies have to obtain information from their branch share registers for the purpose of completing their annual returns, they are currently allowed an extra month in which to lodge those returns with the NCSC to compensate for communication delays between Australia and other parts of the world. However, with modern communication facilities, information can be obtained from overseas almost as quickly as from other parts of Australia. Accordingly, there appears to be no reason why these companies cannot lodge their annual returns within the same time limits as are imposed on other companies. Consequential Amendments Clause 7 of the Bill will insert a new section 265A in the Companies Act which will provide that where a company should have lodged documents with the National Companies and Securities Commission giving details of changes in company officers, registered office and the like, those documents will be deemed to have been lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission if all of the particulars required to have been included in them are included in the company's annual return. Further streamlining of the regulatory requirements will be achieved by dispensing with various requirements for separate certificates to be attached to annual returns. The information will simply be required as separate items in the annual return itself. It is proposed that the substantive amendments will be proclaimed in the second half of 1985. As a consequence, for the majority of companies the changes will first apply in respect of annual returns that are lodged in 1986. Financial Impact Statement I will now make some reference to the financial impact that this Bill will have on Government revenues and expenditure. The changes in this Bill will result in additional costs to the National Companies and Securities Commission for matters such as partially completing annual returns and sending them to companies. However, this increase in costs will be more than offset by a lower cost for processing lodged returns. In the case of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission, the cost of preparing and dispatching partially completed annual returns is estimated to be $9,000 per annum, while expected savings are in the order of $18,000 per annum. The savings to State governments will be considerably greater in respect of the amendments applied as State laws. As mentioned previously, the overall effect of these changes will be to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on companies. As a consequence, they should result in a lowering of the cost of completing and lodging future annual returns. However, it has not been possible to quantify the extent of this cost saving to the commercial community. The Government commends the Companies Amendment Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second Bill I am introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A description of the provisions in this Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that I circulated in respect of the first Bill, the Companies Amendment Bill. Outline of Proposals Under the existing law, companies are liable to pay late fees if they fail to notify corporate affairs commissions within statutory time limits of matters such as changes of directors and changes in the address of the registered office. The purpose of the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill is to ensure that changes to the annual return procedures effected by the Companies Amendment Bill do not alter this capacity to collect late fees in these circumstances. The Companies Amendment Bill amends the Companies Act to provide, in effect, that if a company fails to lodge a notice of, say, a change in directors within the required period after the change takes place but indicates the name of the new director in its next annual return form, it will be deemed to have also lodged the separate notice at the time of lodging the annual return. In other words, it would be redundant to require the separate piece of paper notifying the change, once the company's annual return is up to date. However, in order to encourage companies to comply with their obligations to notify such changes at the time that they occur rather than simply when the next annual return form is due, it is proposed to amend the Companies (Fees) Act to retain the existing late fees. Under the existing provisions of the Companies (Fees) Act, fees are payable only on documents that are physically lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission. In the absence of the amendment, no fees would be payable on documents that are deemed to have been lodged. Financial Impact Statement The Bill does not involve the imposition of any new fees. It simply ensures that the present situation is retained. Without this amendment to the Companies (Fees) Act, the Commonwealth would lose fees revenue of about $100,000 per annum in respect of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission. Losses to State governments would be considerably greater. The Government commends the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 so as to arm the Director of Public Prosecutions with fuller and more direct power to pursue civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth, particularly in relation to the recovery of taxes and duties. The Bill also confers on the Director the additional function of carrying on, where requested to do so, prosecutions on indictment instituted by the Attorney-General. Both Special Prosecutor Redlich and Royal Commissioner Costigan, in their final reports, recommended enhancement of the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the taking of civil remedies and the recovery of pecuniary penalties. Special Prosecutor Gyles, also supported this in his 1983-84 report. As recently announced by me, my Department has been in close consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, QC, over the past months developing the present measure as a new and effective weapon against crime. The key elements of the Bill are as follows: Clause 3 confers upon the Director the function of carrying on a prosecution on indictment instituted by the Attorney-General. This addition to the Director's functions under section 6 of the principal Act will permit greater flexibility in the enforcement of the criminal law of the Commonwealth by enabling the Director to be given authority to carry on such prosecutions where that course is appropriate and convenient. Clause 3 goes on to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to take, to co-ordinate or supervise the taking of, civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth and its authorities for the recovery of any taxes, including duties, charges or levies. This function will be conferred directly by the statute, thus removing in respect of such matters the need under the existing legislation for an instrument from the Attorney-General before the Director of Public Prosecutions can act. In addition, clause 3 also removes the existing requirement that a prosecution be actually commenced before, or at the same time as, the Director of Public Prosecutions may pursue civil remedies. The definition of 'relevant matter' in the new sub-section 6 (8) to be inserted by clause 3 of the Bill makes it clear that the new function of the Director of Public Prosecutions may be exercised in respect of matters connected with or arising out of prosecutions-actual, proposed, or under consideration-by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by a person other than the Director of Public Prosecutions, and provision is also made to extend this new function to cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions could exercise his powers to take over or to carry on prosecutions. Where civil remedies are pursued by the Director of Public Prosecutions provision is made in clause 5 for a court before which such proceedings are instituted to prohibit or restrict the publication of any evidence or information identifying a party or witness to the proceedings. Courts will be able to exercise the power to make this suppression order where it appears to the court to be necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. Neither the English nor the Australian State Directors of Public Prosecutions have been given functions in relation to civil remedies or to pecuniary penalties. While under common law systems Attorneys-General have long been recognised as having special responsibilities and functions in relation to the enforcement of the criminal law to the exclusion of other Ministers, neither they nor officers answerable to them have been regarded as having equivalent responsibilities in relation to the exercise of civil remedies available to the Government. The exercise of such remedies has been regarded as a matter for decision by the Minister responsible for the legislation in question, the department he administers or the relevant statutory officer such as the Commissioner of Taxation. The Minister is, of course, answerable to Parliament for any such decisions. Considered in the light of the traditional position, and leaving aside the particular provisions made in the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, the present measure is therefore a novel one and the Government has therefore acknowledged that it is something of an experiment. Hence the Bill provides in sub-clause 3 (2) for the Director of Public Prosecutions to furnish to the Attorney-General after two years operation of the Bill's provisions a report for the purpose of a review by government of the new civil remedy functions conferred. In this way, the Parliament will have an opportunity, at the end of that trial period, to weigh the costs and benefits of this measure and to decide whether or not it should continue. The balance of the Bill consists of provisions that are formal or consequential upon the provisions I have outlined. I should add that, in addition to introducing these amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, I propose, by an instrument under sub-section 6 (3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, to authorise the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties in respect of relevant matters connected with or arising out of prosecutions of the kinds-actual, proposed or under consideration-to which I have already referred. Such a step was also supported by Mr Costigan and Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles, and it will further enhance the capacity of Director of Public Prosecutions to act swiftly and effectively. There are two matters which I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House. One is the financial impact of the measures proposed in the Bill. Significant increases in staff and resources for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Taxation Office, and the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor will be needed to enable these extra functions to be carried out. The likely costs have been estimated as follows: Approximately $3m this fiscal year and $13m next fiscal year. In the light of current financial constraints, these requirements will be addressed in the context of the Budget, but the Government anticipates that the costs should be more than offset by potential gains to the Commonwealth revenue under this measure. The second point is that, in taking these civil remedies, the Director of Public Prosecutions will utilise the services of the Australian Government Solicitor for the conduct of civil litigation unless urgent circumstances require immediate initial action by himself in particular cases. This Bill will give the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions wider powers and scope to take civil action to recover unpaid taxes and duties, and will also allow action to be taken to prevent persons suspected of engaging in criminal activity alienating, concealing, or removing from the reach of the courts, their assets in an attempt to prevent payment of their civil liabilities. In addition, the Director will be authorised to take proceedings to recover pecuniary penalties in respect of matters connected with prosecutions or activities considered with a view to prosecution. These measures will strengthen the arm of the Director of Public Prosecutions, particularly in the prosecution of organised crime and drug trafficking. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the taxation law in a number of ways. It will abolish the rule, known as the 30:20 rule, that requires life assurance companies and certain superannuation funds to hold specified proportions of their assets in public and Commonwealth securities. It will amend the law to extent existing anti-tax avoidance provisions to counter further variants of avoidance schemes of the expenditure recoupment type. It also contains the measures necessary for the phased introduction of personal income tax on Christmas Island and the introduction there of full company tax and Medicare levy in accordance with our decision to fully integrate the island with mainland Australia. The secrecy provisions of the income tax law are to be amended to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to supply further information for statistical purposes to the Australian Statistician. The Bill also proposes amendments of the dependant rebate provisions of the law to ensure that the social security family income supplement will not be treated as separate net income of a dependant. Amendments of the pay as you earn provisions of the law will give employers rights of objection and appeal in respect of certain penalties imposed for non-compliance with those provisions. Yet further amendments will provide for interest to be paid by the Commissioner of Taxation on amounts refunded as a result of a successful objection or appeal in respect of penalties imposed for non-compliance with the pay as you earn and prescribed payments provisions. Finally, some formal amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the correction of a drafting error are to be effected by the Bill. I will now briefly outline each of the more significant measures contained in the Bill. Abolition of 30:20 Rule This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 10 September 1984, to abolish the 30:20 rule-a further step in deregulating Australia's financial system. Compliance with the 30:20 rule is a condition placed on life assurance companies and certain superannuation funds before they qualify for special tax concessions, including in some cases complete freedom from tax. The rule requires such companies and funds to hold at least 30 per cent of their assets in public securities, including at least 20 per cent in Commonwealth securities. In relation to life assurance companies, abolition of the 30:20 rule will mean: That tax exemption in respect of investment income attributable to superannuation and other eligible policies will no longer be conditional upon observance of the rule; That there will be no restriction on the rebate of tax allowable in respect of assessable dividends; and That the special deduction allowable in respect of calculated liabilities will be a flat one per cent irrespective of the level of investment in public or Commonwealth securities. Two transitional rules will apply for the year of income of a life assurance company in which 11 September 1984 occurred. Under one of those rules the calculated liabilities deduction for the year of income in which 11 September 1984 occurred will be a composite of a partial deduction under the formula in the law being repealed by this Bill and a partial deduction at the flat rate of one per cent. The granting of a composite deduction for calculated liabilities will mean that a life assurance company which at 10 September 1984-the proposed date of abolition of the 30:20 rule-had public and Commonwealth securities in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy the 30:20 rule, will not lose the benefit afforded by that excess. The other transitional rule concerns the rebate of tax on dividends that is to be allowed in the year of income in which 11 September 1984 occurred. At this point I mention that the Government received a submission from the Life Insurance Federation of Australia on the question of appropriate transitional rules. While it has not been possible to adopt all the suggestions put forward, the rules contained in this Bill have been developed with the practical difficulties mentioned by LIFA in mind. In relation to superannuation funds, abolition of the 30:20 rule will mean that funds presently subject to the rule will no longer have to comply with it to qualify for exemption from tax on investment income. The other concessions presently available to superannuation funds and life assurance companies observing the 30:20 rule will, subject to their meeting other existing conditions not related to that rule, be available for the whole of the income year in which 11 September 1984 occurred, notwithstanding that the 30:20 rule may not have been complied with during the first part of the year. The abolition of the 30:20 rule is not expected to have any discernible effect on revenue. Expenditure Recoupment Schemes By this Bill the specific anti-tax avoidance provisions of the income tax law applicable to what are termed expenditure recoupment schemes will be further extended yet again. Briefly, those provisions are designed to deny tax deductions or rebates for certain expenditure incurred after 24 September 1978 under a tax avoidance scheme entered into after that date. Under these particular schemes the taxpayer or an associate of the taxpayer obtains a benefit, the value of which, when combined with the tax saving sought, effectively recoups the claimed expenditure; hence the description 'expenditure recoupment' scheme. The existing provisions apply to no fewer than 19 variants of the basic expenditure recoupment scheme inserted on four separate occasions by amendments of the law. Measures proposed by this Bill will extend the provisions to two further variants, details of which recently became known. The latest variants of the basic scheme seek to exploit the special income tax deduction allowable for capital expenditure incurred in respect of a unit of industrial property, and the deduction allowable for losses and outgoings incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or in carrying on a business for the purpose of producing such income. Consistent with the statement by the former Treasurer when legislative action against expenditure recoupment schemes was first announced on 24 September 1978, the amendments proposed by this Bill will apply from that date. Specifically, the amendments will apply to expenditure incurred after 24 September 1978 under schemes entered into after that date and before 28 May 1981. That latter date was the date of effect of the general anti-tax avoidance provisions of the income tax law-Part IVA. In conformity with the existing law, the amendments will also ensure that there will be no carry-forward to the 1978-79 and subsequent income years of prior year losses arising under any such schemes entered into on or before 24 September 1978. It is estimated that $25m in revenue is at risk in relation to schemes of this kind entered into after 24 September 1978 and before 28 May 1981. In proceeding with these amendments, the Government is conscious of the decision by the Federal Court of Australia late last year in the case of the Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Lau, which concerned the application of the existing expenditure recoupment provisions of the income tax law. On the facts of that particular case, the Federal Court confirmed the Supreme Court finding that the expenditure recoupment provisions of the law did not apply to deny the deductions sought by the taxpayer. The implications of that decision are presently being considered by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Government will, of course, consider any advice he may tender to us in relation to the implications of that decision on the expenditure recoupment provisions. Christmas Island The Bill will give effect to the decision, announced by the Minister for Territories and the Acting Treasurer on 10 April 1985, to phase in personal income tax on Christmas Island from the commencement of the 1985-86 year of income and also to introduce full company tax and the Medicare levy from that time. Extension to Christmas Island of taxation and Medicare levy obligations is an important element in the package of measures necessary for the integration of the island with mainland Australia. The amendments will remove existing income tax exemptions for income derived by Christmas Island residents from sources in Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and other ex-Australian sources. That income will be equated with income from mainland Australia, in relation to which the existing income tax exemptions do not apply. The amendments will also include Christmas Island in income tax zone A with effect from 1 July 1985, and individuals resident there will be eligible for the special zone rebate from that date. Christmas Island resident individuals will, for the 1985-86 year of income, be liable for 25 per cent of the full mainland tax applicable to the previously exempt income. For 1986-87 and 1987-88, the phasing will be on the basis of 50 per cent and 75 per cent respectively of mainland tax applicable to such income with full personal tax first applying in the 1988-89 income year. As indicated in the announcement of 10 April 1985, these phasing arrangements will operate by first determining the amount of tax payable on a Christmas Island resident's total taxable income, after allowance of the special zone rebate and other concessional rebates to which the taxpayer is entitled. The tax liability so determined, to the extent it relates to relevant income presently exempt from tax, will then be reduced-by the allowance of a special rebate proposed in this Bill-to the appropriate percentage for the particular phasing year. The benefits of phasing will be maximised by the presently exempt income being treated as the final component of taxable income attracting tax at higher marginal rates. Payments made to Christmas Island residents on and after 1 July 1985 in respect of unused annual leave will be taxed on the same basis as such payments are taxed on the mainland. Other payments received by Christmas Island residents on or after 1 July 1985 on retirement from, or on termination of, employment will be subject, broadly, to the same rules that presently apply on the mainland in relation to payments of that type. However, relevant payments that relate to service prior to 1 July 1985 will remain exempt from tax. The amendments will extend full company tax and the full Medicare levy to the Island from the commencement of the 1985-86 year. The integration of Christmas Island with mainland Australia necessarily involves it being treated as part of the mainland for income tax purposes. This has consequential effects also for residents of Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands because the relevant exempting provisions of the existing law apply as though those territories and Christmas Island were the one territory. As a consequence of this, and subject to the phasing arrangements mentioned earlier, residents of Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands will in future be liable to Australian tax on income derived from sources in Christmas Island, in the same way as they are now liable to tax on income from mainland Australia. The amendments will not, however, affect the exemptions presently available to genuine residents of Norfolk Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands in respect of income from sources in either of those territories or from other sources outside mainland Australia. Revenue from these measures is estimated to rise from $1m in 1985-86 to $6m in 1988-89, but will be offset by the cost of other aspects of the Christmas Island integration package. Disclosure of Additional Taxation Information to the Australian Statistician Under the secrecy provisions of the income tax law, information as to the name, address and industry classification of an employer, as well as the number of male and female employees of an employer, can be provided to the Australian Statistician for the purposes of the Census and Statistics Act. The Government has decided that some further taxation information should be made available to the Statistician for the purposes of that Act. To that end, the bill will amend the secrecy provisions so that some of the information presently provided in respect of employers can be made available in respect of business taxpayers generally-that is, information as to the name, address and industry classification of a person carrying on business. The amendment will also enable certain other business taxpayer information to be provided; in particular, information that the Statistician requires for or in connection with the conduct of periodic industry surveys and with the compilation of the Australian national accounts. This measure is of an administrative nature and will have no direct effect on revenue. The benefits to be derived by way of improvement to statistical information are expected to be at least commensurate with administrative costs to the Australian Taxation Office in providing, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics in receiving, this information. Rebates for Dependants The Bill will also make two amendments of the dependant rebate provisions of the income tax law. The first of these changes will benefit families in receipt of social security family income supplement. This supplement is an income tested payment made to low income families with children and is exempt from income tax in the hands of the recipient. Prior to May 1984, the supplement was paid to the primary breadwinner, but since then it has been paid to the recipient of family allowances, generally the mother. To ensure that receipt of family income supplement by a person will not affect the concessional rebate entitlement of a taxpayer who is contributing to the maintenance of that person, the Bill proposes that the supplement will not be taken into account in determining the separate net income of a dependant. This amendment will be effective from 1 May 1984, the date from which family income supplement became payable to the recipient of family allowances. I note that this change will not affect revenue collections in the current year. It will result in the Government forgoing estimated revenue of $6.5m in 1985-86 and $7m in a full year which would otherwise have been collected in the form of an unintended clawback through the income tax system arising from the change in the method of paying family income supplement. The other amendment to be made in this area will correct a drafting error in the provisions enacted last year to extend eligibility for the dependant spouse rebate to de facto couples. One of the amendments made at that time was designed to deny a taxpayer entitlement to a daughter-housekeeper rebate for any period of an income year that he or she contributed to the maintenance of a de facto spouse. However, the provision was drafted in such a way that it effectively precludes a partial daughter-housekeeper rebate in any year of income where a taxpayer contributes to the maintenance of a spouse-legal or de facto-during any part of that year. The measure to rectify this situation will apply with effect from 1 July 1984-that being the operative date of the provision it amends-and will have no measurable effect on revenue. Objection and Appeal Rights against Certain Penalties The Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 brought the penalties applicable to breaches of the pay as you earn provisions into line with those applicable to breaches of the prescribed payments provisions of the income tax law. However, by oversight that Act did not extend objection and appeal rights to certain pay as you earn penalties that correspond with prescribed payments penalties in respect of which there are such rights. This Bill will correct that oversight. At the same time, the Bill will ensure that objection and appeal rights are not available in respect of penalties for late payment that are calculated at 20 per cent per annum. These amendments are not expected to have any discernible effect on revenue. Interest on Refunds of Disputed Penalties It is now the established policy of the taxation law that amounts of tax that, on the one hand, attract penalties for late payment should, on the other hand, attract interest where they are refunded on resolution of an objection or appeal against their imposition. This Bill will amend the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983 so that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interest on refunds of penalties that are imposed for breaches of the pay as you earn and prescribed payments provisions of the income tax law, but which are reduced as a result of a successful objection or appeal against their imposition. The revenue cost of these amendments cannot be readily estimated but is likely to be minimal. Other Amendments The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to make several formal amendments of the income tax law. Most of these alter references to ministerial or departmental titles following changes in the machinery of government. One of the amendments will repeal a redundant provision relating to the rights of Commonwealth and State public servants appointed to taxation boards of review. These formal amendments will have no effect on revenue. A detailed technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the usual comprehensive explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members on taxation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to broaden the charter of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 to allow the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide finance for all general business purposes and to provide equity financing and packages of equity and debt. These changes were decided upon following a review of the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank, particularly in regard to its ability to meet the funding requirements of small businesses. I foreshadowed these amendments in my Press release of 29 April 1985 which announced a number of measures aimed at improving the access of small business to bank finance and the removal of all interest rate controls except in the housing area where the control on loans for owner-occupied housing of amounts less than $100,000 will remain. The package of measures that has been introduced is expected to improve significantly the availability of finance for small business, and is in accordance with earlier decisions the Government has made to promote a more efficient and dynamic financial sector. In deciding to remove these interest rate ceilings the Government accepted the generally agreed view that they have had the effect of discouraging bank lending to small business. This is in line with the findings of the Review Group on the Australian Financial System, the Martin group, and was supported in advice to the Government by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia and the Government's Small Business Council. The removal of these controls will enable banks to set interest rates to reflect the costs and risks involved in lending proposals. This should mean that small businesses will no longer have to tolerate a situation where the availability of finance through the banking system is rationed. Also, banks will be encouraged to introduce more flexible, innovative loan packages and to improve advisory services to small business. Turning to the Government's decisions in respect of the Commonwealth Development Bank, I would note the special role the bank has played in assisting small businesses over the last 25 years in its role as a lender of last recourse. This has seen the bank provide finance to businesses which would otherwise have been unable to obtain funds from banks on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. In the 1983-84 financial year, the bank approved loans totalling $270m to nearly 4,000 applicants and at 30 June 1984 had loans outstanding of $692m. In reviewing the role of the Development Bank the Government accepted the view of the Martin group that there would continue to be a specialist role for the Development Bank as a lender of last recourse and that the bank's activities should be on a fully commercial basis. It will be recalled that following the restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation last year, the Commonwealth Development Bank is now required to pay corporation tax. As I mentioned earlier, following the removal of interest rate controls, it is expected that banks generally will be more prepared to increase finance and services to small businesses. As a consequence a higher proportion of the demand for Commonwealth Development Bank finance should be in the higher risk areas and for longer term loans, sought on the basis of projected income flows rather than security. In view of these considerations the Government has also decided that the charter of the Development Bank should be broadened so that the bank can provide finance to all businesses. This involves the removal of the present restrictions on the bank's lending activities which limits the provison of finance to the establishment and development of businesses and for the purpose of primary production. Further, it has been agreed the bank should be able to offer more diverse forms of finance, including equity funding and packages of equity and debt. Consistent with the Bank's lender of last recourse role, such funds are to be provided only where businesses are unable to obtain such funds from other sources on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. The bank's equity funding role will be subject to general policies approved by the Government. These decisions are also in line with the recommendations put to the Government by the Martin group. The Government intends to examine in two years time the effectiveness of the Commonwealth Development Bank under its wider charter as a financier of small business. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide the Commonwealth Development Bank with the requisite powers to carry out the broader range of activities I have outlined and which should be of considerable benefit to the small business sector. There are no significant costs, revenue or savings to the Government arising directly from the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Following the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review national wage case decisions automatically apply to officers within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including Ministers of State. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum from $610,000 to $630,000 to cover the effect of the 2.6 per cent national wage case handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 3 April 1985, for the remainder of this financial year and the next. The date of effect of this amendment is the date prescribed in the national wage case decision, that is, the first pay period commencing on or after 6 April 1985. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1985-86, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $7,189.6m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $580.3m, or about 8.8 per cent greater than the equivalent amounts provided in Supply Act (No. 1) 1984-85. A significant part of the increase reflects the flow-through of staffing approvals in 1984-85 and salary and other cost increases including the effects of the National wage case decision handed down on 3 April 1985. The increase also includes: $36m for the effects of price increases and the decrease in the value of the Australian dollar on new and replacement defence equipment and stores, and on repairs and overhaul; $39.2m reflecting substantial increases in allowance levels approved for 1985 and increased participation levels in both secondary and tertiary education under student assistance programs; $140m in respect of the first home owners scheme, provision for which in 1984-85 was made by a standing appropriation under the First Home Owners Act 1983; and $32m under the Department of Resources and Energy reflecting an arrangement with Queensland Mines Ltd to purchase that proportion of its total uranium production originally destined for export to the French authority, Electricite de France. This follows the Government's decision to impose an embargo on uranium sales to France. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks interim provision only in respect of approved ongoing policies of the Government. It does not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1985-86 Budget context for which provision will be sought in the Appropriation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling $1,752.6m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985. The amount sought is $40.8m, or about 2.4 per cent, greater than that provided in Supply Act (No. 2) 1984-85. The main increases relate to: $32m for payments to the States by way of assistance under section 96 of the Constitution for the purposes of legal aid commissions. These payments were previously appropriated as cost reimbursements under Supply Bill (No. 1); $45.9m under the Department of Community Services reflecting the expected introduction on 1 July 1985 of the new home and community care program; $93.5m under the Department of Health for payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, mainly reflecting the increasing proportion of patients electing to be treated as public patients under Medicare; and $58.4m under the Department of the Treasury for increases in funding to the Northern Territory under the existing terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Government, largely consequent upon the expected strong growth in Commonwealth tax revenues in 1984-85. This provision is without prejudice to forthcoming negotiations on the funding arrangements. Certain new provisions in respect of which government decisions have been taken have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. As indicated with respect to Supply Bill (No. 1), the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1985-86 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditure by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985. They total some $19.5m, which is $2.3m or about 13.4 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the Supply period 1984-85. An increase is necessary to maintain the ongoing operations of the Parliament, and to meet unavoidable salary and other cost increases arising partly from the increased numbers of members and senators. However, the appropriations reflect the need for maximum restraint in all areas of public expenditure in 1985-86. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Bill makes provision for the apportionment of wool tax receipts, imposed by the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964, among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation, that is, wool promotion and market administration expenses. The Bill also makes provision for greater flexibility in the apportionment among the end uses through regulations being made to vary such apportionment. The apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964 are more appropriately contained in the Wool Tax Industry Act 1972. Accordingly the complementary Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills provide for the removal of the apportionment provisions. At present the five Wool Tax Acts and regulations provide for a levy on wool growers of 8 per cent of the sale value of shorn wool. Receipts from the wool tax are apportioned under the Wool Tax Acts and associated regulations as follows. Five per cent is allocated by the Wool Tax Acts to the Australian Wool Corporation for market support. The remaining 3 per cent is allocated under the Wool Tax Regulations as 2.5 per cent to wool promotion and market administration expenses and 0.5 per cent to research. The Wool Tax Acts provide for the Wool Council of Australia to make recommendations to the Minister with respect to variations in apportionment to promotion and research. The Council is seeking the flexibility to be able to vary the wool market support component of tax receipts between four and five percentage points and to make corresponding variations in the allocations to wool promotion and research. In the short run the Council is particularly concerned that the depreciation of the Australian dollar against a range of international currencies could result in an increased contribution to the International Wool Secretariat budget of the Australian Wool Corporation of up to $25m in 1985-86. Hence, it is important to have this amending legislation in place before the 1985-86 selling season to allow regulations to be made varying the apportionment to wool promotion as recommended by the Wool Council of Australia. Wool is sold in an extremely competitive and fashion conscious market and in the longer term we need to ensure that it is not disadvantaged in any way in competing with other fibres. The wool industry's continued growth and prosperity depend very much on meeting the demanding marketing challenges of the world textile market and financial support of the International Wool Secretariat's promotional activity is vital. The Government recognises the marketing challenges which face the industry. Last year it introduced arrangements setting the Government contribution to wool promotion at 1.2 per cent of the gross value of wool sales for each of the five years to 1988-89 subject to the wool industry at least maintaining its present level of funding for promotion. The increased flexibility sought in this Bill would enable the wool industry to compete more effectively in promoting wool by directing additional funds to promotion when necessary. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. This Bill and the complementary Wool Tax Amendment Bills are essentially procedural amendments facilitating the variation in apportionment of industry funds. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Kerin)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent five Wool Tax Amendment Bills- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the Committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all of the Bills together; and (b) the consideration of the Bills in one Committee of the Whole. Bills presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Second Readings Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.08) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool sold by a wool broker. The Act also provides for the apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill is one of five Wool Tax Amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool, to give effect to the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. Wool Tax (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool purchased by a registered wool dealer from a person other than a wool broker. The Act also provides for a apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. Wool Tax (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 3) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool purchased by a manufacturer from a person other than a wool broker or a registered wool dealer. The Act also provides for the apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 3) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. Wool Tax (No. 4) Amendment Bill 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 4) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool subjected by a manufacturer to a process of manufacture. The Act also provides for the apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 4) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. Wool Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 5) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool exported from Australia among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 5) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend these five Bills to the House. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to clarify the procedure we are adopting. I was under the impression that we were agreeing to the introduction of the five Bills at the second reading stage together but I am a bit doubtful about the form of the resolution passed and whether we will proceed through all stages at this time. If that is the case, was our shadow Minister acquainted with the fact beforehand? Mr KERIN —There are five Acts, and there are little bits of wool on which taxes and levies are paid. We are putting each of those little bits of tax into one set of Bills. Rather than presenting each one of those five little pieces of legislation this is simply a device by which we will have two Bills to discuss when the legislation goes through to the second reading, Committee and the third reading stages rather than six Bills. It is just a simple machinery amendment. Mr Braithwaite —You will take the adjournment now? Mr KERIN —Yes. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Wool Tax (Nos 1 to 5) Amendment Bills The purpose of this Bill is to provide parliamentary approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a new rural adjustment scheme. The details of the scheme are set out in the agreement which is contained in a Schedule to the Bill and in a schedule to the agreement. Assistance for rural adjustment has been provided by the Commonwealth since the early 1970s. The rural adjustment scheme operates on a lender of last resort basis and is an important mechanism for facilitating the adjustment process in Australian rural industries. It is particularly relevant today when a number of rural industries are suffering the effects of changed market circumstances and increasing cost pressures. Industries such as the sugar industry, the dairy industry and the grape industry are currently undergoing significant change and the rural adjustment scheme is assisting this process. While providing the same forms of assistance as have been available in the past the new scheme, which with the co-operation of the States will commence operation on 1 July 1985, will be different in a number of respects. The new scheme has been developed in the light of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on rural adjustment in March 1984. The IAC found a number of deficiencies in the present scheme, which has operated since 1 January 1977. The IAC had difficulty in determining the effectiveness of the rural adjustment scheme but on balance considered that such a facility should be retained although the scheme should only be invoked for particular industries or regions in trouble as determined after independent public inquiry. Following consideration of the IAC report, the Government agreed that the rural adjustment scheme be maintained as a continuing and generally available scheme but that Parts A and B be funded by borrowings with Government assistance provided through an interest rate subsidy. It was agreed that Part C of the scheme, which is essentially welfare assistance for primary producers assessed as having no long term prospects of viability, continue to be funded from the Commonwealth Budget. An important determinant in the Government's decision to change the funding arrangements for the rural adjustment scheme is to move to a system where the benefits of the scheme are more transparent. Under the present arrangements, the Commonwealth provides funds to the States and the Northern Territory over a long term and under highly concessional terms and conditions. In addition, only 85 per cent of these funds are repayable by the State. The IAC observed that the full concession was not being passed on to farmers. Most States were charging a considerably higher rate of interest and lending the money over a shorter term than applied for the loans from the Commonwealth to the State. This has resulted in the States generating surpluses under the scheme which have amounted to millions of dollars. Some States have a policy of recovering these surpluses to Consolidated Revenue funds where they are effectively lost to the rural industries. The Government is appalled at this situation, particularly as some rural industries could benefit greatly from access to those funds at the time when they are suffering enormous adjustment pressures. The new arrangements are designed to ensure that this situation does not arise under a new scheme. The assistance provided by the Government, in the form of an interest rate subsidy for eligible farmers, will be much more visible and the benefits will be passed on to farmers. The deficiencies identified by the IAC have been addressed in the administration arrangements for the new scheme. It will be closely monitored and an annual report will be presented to Parliament on the scheme's operation so that it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and full public disclosure. The report will seek to demonstrate how the scheme operates and how assistance has been used. The new arrangements have been the subject of extensive consultations between Commonwealth and State officials. Formal meetings have been held in July 1984 and in February, March and April 1985. The details were discussed at a Commonwealth-State and Northern Territory ministerial meeting on 24 April 1985. In addition, discussions have been held individually with State rural adjustment authorities. As a result of these discussions extensive modifications have been made to earlier drafts of the agreement in an attempt to meet States' and the Northern Territory's views. However, it has been made clear that the basic elements of the scheme could not be altered; that is, that assistance will be provided by way of an interest rate subsidy on borrowings under the scheme and that bad debts will be shared equally between the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory up to a certain level. The Commonwealth will meet all bad debts in excess of that level. The Commonwealth will also contribute towards administration costs by paying the equivalent of one per cent of average outstanding loans for Parts A and B and 2 per cent of the assistance provided under Part C. The new arrangements should provide adequate flexibility for administration and be an effective means of providing adjustment assistance for rural industries. Under the terms of the new rural adjustment agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory, the scheme will continue to be administered by State and Northern Territory rural adjustment authorities. There will be two options available for providing adjustment assistance. States and the Northern Territory may borrow funds to operate the scheme or they may provide the assistance through an interest rate concession on loans arranged through normal commercial channels. While the 50 per cent subsidy which the Commonwealth provides in respect of a year's borrowing will be made available each year for seven years, for Part A assistance, in respect of each individual the amount of assistance and the period for which it is provided-which of course may extend beyond seven years-is a matter for the State adjustment authorities to determine. There will be a strong emphasis under the scheme on returning assisted farmers to commercial credit as soon as circumstances permit. The rural adjustment scheme is a viability based scheme. Its objective is to return to commercial viability those farms and farmers assessed as having sound prospects of commercial viability in the longer term. The scheme also provides for farmers assessed as having no prospects of long term commercial viability assistance to leave the industry. Part A of the scheme will provide for assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement. Debt reconstruction assistance is designed to help the applicant whose prospects are sound but who is unable to obtain finance to carry on and is thus in danger of losing his property or other assets. The assistance may provide for a rearrangement or composition of debts to allow more time for payment. Money may be advanced for repayment of all or part of the debts and for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development. The farm build-up provisions are designed to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under current conditions. Assistance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property to enable him to buy adjoining land to build up his property, or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. The farm improvement provisions are designed to improve the effective use of an existing farm without increasing its area by a program of development to improve the economic viability of the farm. Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement will take the form of loans on such terms and conditions, including interest rate, as the State authority considers appropriate or by an interest subsidy on loans through normal commercial sources. In the latter case the State will need to satisfy itself that the loan is appropriate for the individual and the type of assistance sought. There are occasions when a particular rural industry encounters a severe market downturn or similar eventuality and assistance is required to enable some producers in that industry to carry on pending the recovery of the industry's fortunes. If such assistance is not available many producers experience permanent financial damage and the country's productive capacity suffers along with the individual. The rural adjustment scheme therefore includes a standing facility under Part B to enable assistance to be made available for essential carry-on purposes in times of severe market downturn or similar situation-but excluding circumstances covered by natural disaster arrangements-in those rural industries where the Commonwealth and States agree from time to time that it is necessary. The Commonwealth and the State will share the cost of that assistance and will agree on the terms and conditions of the assistance to be provided in particular circumstances. The facility will be activated by notice to that effect in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. In making its assessment of the applicant, the State administering authority will have regard to the farmer's asset structure and will make its assessment on the assumption of a market recovery to the long term trend. The applicant must also be in a position where he is unable to obtain carry-on finance on reasonable terms from any other normal commercial source. Household support is designed to provide help for farmers who are judged to be non-viable and who have insufficient resources to meet living expenses and who are in need of assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship while the farmer considers whether to adjust out of farming. A farmer will be eligible for such assistance if he is assessed by the administering authority as being ineligible for Parts A and B assistance, does not have sound prospects of long term commercial viability and will suffer financial hardship if not assisted. A farmer cannot concurrently be in receipt of household support and unemployment benefits. Assistance will be provided for a period of up to one year sufficient to raise the applicant's estimated future net income from all sources to the level of approximately that which would be applicable to him if he were eligible for unemployment benefits. In those cases where a demonstrable effort has been made to move out of farming an extension of a further two years may be allowed at the discretion of the administering authority. Prospective income for each period will be assessed by the authority on the basis of a declaration made by the applicant. Where it would take some time to assess an applicant's entitlement, interim assistance may be granted by the authority as a loan, provided there is prima facie evidence of urgent need and unavailability of alternative sources of finance. If the authority subsequently determines that the applicant has a viable enterprise, the interim assistance will be regarded as carry-on finance and will, of course, be repayable. At the end of the first period of 12 months, household support assistance received by a farmer may be converted to a grant. If the farmer adjusts out of farming within three years of the time he first received household support, any advances made to him and not already converted to a grant may be so converted. If he does not adjust out of farming within three years of first receiving assistance any advance made to him and not already converted to a grant will be repayable to the authority. A farmer who is prepared to adjust out of farming may receive rehabilitation assistance. Such assistance is provided at the discretion of the administering authority and may be converted to a grant also at the discretion of the authority. The authority must be satisfied that the applicant will suffer financial hardship if not assisted under this provision. The maximum loan will be $8,000 from 1 July 1985 but will be indexed to the consumer price index. This loan may be converted to a grant at a subsequent time. Eligibility for rehabilitation assistance is not affected by the farmer having already received assistance under the household support provision. The financial assistance to be provided each year for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement will be determined by the Commonwealth before the commencement of the financial year following consultation between Commonwealth and State Ministers. The amount to be made available by the Commonwealth to a State for the purposes of carry-on assistance will be determined at the time that the Commonwealth and the States agree that the provision of such assistance is warranted. Household support and rehabilitation will not be subject to prior allocation of funds; funds for these purposes will be provided by the Commonwealth. Under the new arrangements, the interest subsidy for Part A assistance in 1985-86 is estimated to be around $1.75m. This figure is expected to increase gradually over seven years to peak at around $12m to $13m. Under the present scheme, Part A assistance in 1984-85 approximated $30m in the form of loan funds to the States for eligible applicants. There is no Part B scheme currently in operation. Part C assistance for 1984-85 under the present rural adjustment scheme will approximate $1.3m. Assistance under Part C of the new scheme is expected to exceed this amount in 1985-86. The Commonwealth's contribution for administration expenses in 1985-86 is expected to be $394,000. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for the restructuring of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, to put it on a more commercial footing and to allow it to participate more effectively in the international engineering market. The changes are extensive, but simple and easy to understand. They are designed to allow operational flexibility to the Corporation in Australia and overseas, to improve the Corporation's competitive capacity in a wide range of engineering works, to maximise its flagship role overseas and to ensure that it acts with commercial prudence. On 27 March 1985 I introduced a Bill entitled the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill 1985 to repeal and re-enact the existing Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, to give effect to the Government's objectives for the Corporation. A new Act was seen as the more efficient legal route, as the changes to the 1970 Act were so extensive. An new Act would mean, however, that enabling legislation previously passed by the States, conferring powers on the Corporation, would need to be amended. As a matter of prudence this would have to be done before the new Commonwealth Act was brought into effect. I have been advised that this action could take up to 12 months, or even longer, before all States passed the appropriate enabling legislation. In respect of the existing Act, the States, not unreasonably, did not take action in 1970 to introduce enabling legislation until the Commonwealth Act was proclaimed. In the event some of the enabling legislation did not come into effect until up to two years after the Commonwealth legislation came into operation. The Government's priority is to implement its objectives for the Corporation at the earliest possible time. It would not wish the proclamation of the necessary legislation to be subject to undue delay. To avoid this possibility and to avoid placing unreasonable pressure on the States, the Government now proposes to amend the present Act rather than replace it by a new Act. This alleviates the need for any immediate changes in State enabling Acts and will allow the Corporation to carry out its new functions and exercise its new powers as from the date of proclamation of the Commonwealth Act. This Bill, entitled the 'Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill 1985,' not only meets the Government's aim of implementing the Corporation's new functions and powers, but also ensures that the end result will be the same as if the Bill I introduced on 27 March 1985 were to take effect; that is, the range of amendments to the existing Act are identical to those that were contained in the original Bill to give effect to the Government's stated objectives. I will remind the House of those changes. The key changes are to: remove existing restrictions on the range of engineering activities open to the Corporation; include in the statement of functions a specific reference to the Government's intention that the Corporation shall, as far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of overseas work and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry; allow the Corporation, with ministerial approval, to form companies or other legal arrangements where this is necessary to assist the progress of involving Australian engineering companies in joint ventures overseas and for other commercial purposes; replace the present 'corporation sole' by a five-member board of directors, to give the Corporation access to a range of management talent from the engineering, marketing, finance and trade union sectors; ensure that the Corporation acts in accordance with sound commercial principles; and update the financial provisions of the Act to accord with current Government policy regarding statutory authorities. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is now going to go right through everything which appears in the House of Representatives Hansard on 27 March this year, commencing on page 1012. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, the Parliament should not have to go right through the whole thing all over again because there has been, frankly, a monumental stuff-up in that the first Bill is clearly incompetent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I find the language just used by the honourable member offensive. I do not think it is appropriate that that kind of language appear in Hansard. I ask that other words be substituted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the Minister point out which words he is referring to? Mr Peter Morris —I am referring to the words 'monumental stuff-up'. I do not think that language is appropriate to the Parliament. Mr Hodgman —I only used that term because the Prime Minister used it last week. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a valid point of order. Mr WEST —The Corporation was established under the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 to preserve and capitalise on the professional engineering expertise developed during construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It has provided a major source of engineering expertise to governments and industry in Australia. Just as importantly, the Corporation has played an increasing role in the provision of engineering design and construction management services in overseas markets. Initially, it relied heavily on aid projects for involvement overseas on behalf of the Australian Government, but in recent years Australian aid projects generally have been allocated on a strictly commercial basis and the Corporation has had to operate in a difficult competitive environment. One result is that the Corporation has also been undertaking and increasing proportion of its work directly for international clients. Until 1983-84, the Corporation had an unbroken record of profitability, returning to government $3.3m and corporate tax of $10m. The Corporation developed an international reputation for the Australian engineering industry through the successful completion of some 1,100 projects in 35 countries, involving total consulting fees for the Corporation of over $200m. Its staff numbers grew from 192 in 1971 to a peak of more than 600 in 1983. In 1984, Engineering New Record, a major American publication, ranked the Corporation No. 60 in the world's top 200 international design firms. Only two other Australian firms have ever appeared in these design listings. The Corporation's outstanding commercial export record over the 1970s and 1980s was marked by its receipt in 1984 of the Governor-General's award for export excellence. The Corporation, since its establishment, has pursued a conscious policy of assisting the Australian engineering profession to obtain a foothold overseas. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation inherited the great reputation and skills base created by the Snowy Mountains Authority upon its completion of the Snowy Mountains project-our greatest national engineering work to that time. It has provided proof that Australian skills are marketable in fiercely competitive foreign markets. Its reputation at home and abroad is now synonymous with engineering excellence. Like many private consulting engineering firms, the Corporation recently suffered from the decrease in available work in Australia and overseas. The world-wide economic recession, reduced aid flows from the oil-exporting nations to Third World countries and the debt problems of many developing countries led to reductions in overseas development programs. At the same time, there was a sharp increase in competition from international engineering firms which were faced with drastic downturns in activity in their traditional markets. Unlike private enterprise, the Corporation did not have the capacity to quickly shed staff, at minimal cost, to an appropriate level. In 1983-84, faced with a declining market, the first-ever operating loss and severe cash pressures, the Corporation sought outside assistance to evaluate and review its operations. Following a review by management consultants, improved accounting, costing and management information systems were introduced. The Government announced in July 1984 its support for the continued operation of the Corporation, based in Cooma, together with the provision of a cash injection of up to $6m, largely to fund a voluntary retrenchment program. This was to enable the Corporation to streamline its operations pending decisions on a longer term restructuring. Following these decisions, the Corporation's staff was reduced from a peak of 623 in February 1983 to 387 in February 1985 and will be further reduced to an expected 360 by June 1985. This has been achieved through natural attrition and voluntary retrenchment. The Corporation retains an effective mix of professional skills which will enable it to take full advantage of emerging opportunities. Certain key appointments have also been made which will increase the Corporation's capacity to operate on a commercial basis. In particular, Mr J. L. Liebelt, a former group executive director of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, has been appointed interim chairman to advise on the restructuring process. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decisions concerning the long term restructuring of the Corporation. The Government is determined that the Corporation shall once again become a commercially viable organisation capable of maintaining a competitive presence in international markets. The Bill provides that the Corporation shall act in accordance with sound commercial principles and aim to raise revenue sufficient to permit the payment each year to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on capital, in addition to the payment of income tax. A five-person board, comprising a chairperson, a managing director and three other directors, will be responsible for determining the policies of the Corporation and conducting its business. The board will be required to inform me of its policy decisions and provide me with regular reports on its operations. I shall, of course, be able to direct the Corporation as to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. Any such directions will be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. It would not be the Government's intention to seek to intervene in the detailed activities of the Corporation, but rather to ensure its compliance with overall government policies and sound financial principles. In accordance with this greater commercial focus, the Government has removed the outdated restrictions which have hindered the Corporation from diversifying into new kinds of engineering activity. It is clear that in a rapidly changing international market-place the Corporation needs to be able to move into areas of expanding business and provide a comprehensive range of advanced engineering services. At the same time, the Government has explicitly recognised the Corporation's outstanding international reputation, its unrivalled commitment to the export of engineering services, and its long history of involving other Australian organisations in its overseas endeavours. The Government has therefore decided to formally recognise the Corporation's role in promoting the overseas activities of the Australian engineering profession by including in its statement of functions a requirement that the Corporation shall endeavour to: Expand its activities and enhance its professional reputation overseas; so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of its functions overseas; and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be up to the Corporation's board, which I shall be appointing as soon as possible following the passage of this Bill, to determine the policies to give effect to these functions and to decide how it will seek to involve Australian organisations in its overseas activities. On balance, private Australian engineering organisations are sure to benefit. They will experience stronger, but fair, competition from a revitalised Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. In overseas markets, however, the Corporation will be committed to work in partnership with other Australian interests. The steps that the Corporation has already taken to restructure its operations, contain costs and improve its management systems will mean a substantial improvement in the Corporation's financial position. The corporation has advised me that following a projected net loss of some $3.5m in the current financial year, it will make every endeavour to break even in 1985-86. The corporation will nevertheless be continuing to pursue cost cutting initiatives, including the consolidation of its operations at a single site at Back Creek, Cooma, and negotiations with staff associations and the Public Service Board to bring employment conditions more into line with the consulting engineering industry norm. The Corporation has informed me that it is also developing proposals for superannuation arrangements for new employees outside the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. Any proposals will be dealt with expeditiously. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the proposed amendments to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act, including the installation of a board of directors, will ensure that the Corporation continues to be a viable commercial engineering organisation of which Australia can be proud. Furthermore, a revitalised and restructured Corporation operating on sound commercial principles will reduce any potential call on taxpayers' funds in future years. Because of the concerted repertoire of comments during the second reading speech, I repeat what I said at the outset: The Government, as is its prerogative, has decided to let the first Bill lapse. That Bill was to repeal the current Act. That decision was made in the interests of getting SMEC operational under this Bill at an early date. We have decided, as is our complete responsibility and prerogative, not to repeal the current Act and replace it with a new Act, but to amend the current Act, to obviate the necessity for the State enabling legislation to be passed. This will mean that these measures-if the Opposition will come to its senses and support them-will be promulgated as soon as the Bill has been passed in the Senate, so that the board can be appointed and so that the new measures can proceed. I have again explained to honourable members opposite that the reasons for the amendments are that this is a new Bill and the other Bill will lapse. I have stated in this second reading speech that the intention of the Government remains the same as outlined in the earlier Bill. The Government's intention has not changed. The only change is in the strategy, that is, that the current Act will be amended, rather than repealed, and replaced with a new Act. I make one more point. At the Commonwealth-States Ministers meeting on construction last week, Ministers from all States, including Queensland and Tasmania, unanimously commended SMEC on the work it has done in the past. They commended the Government's intention to develop overseas a flag carrier role for SMEC with the additional intention of helping the Australian engineering industry in the private sector to obtain overseas work. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(5.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am honoured to introduce this Bill to the House. I regard it and related legislation as one of the most significant transport initiatives to come before the Parliament since Federation. It represents the start in establishing a truly national transport strategy for Australia because it deals not only with roads but also with railways, research and road safety. It is the first time a Federal government has adopted a comprehensive approach to land transport funding. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance that efficient transport systems have to the economic well-being of all Australians. About $1 in every seven spent in this country is on transport. Transport impacts on every facet of our economic and social activity. Yet for too long inaction by Federal governments has allowed our transport systems to flounder without a national sense of direction or priority. Since this Government has assumed office we have devoted considerable effort and resources to addressing the shortcomings of Australia's transport system in a cohesive and coherent way. We have made substantial progress which is due in large part to this Government's policy of working in consultation with other governments, industry and employees. The Bill now before the House will be the foundation upon which our overall approach to transport will be based. It provides a use related basis for determining Federal expenditure on land transport systems. Furthermore, the arrangements incorporate an automatic adjustment to match future inflationary movements as measured by the consumer price index. It guarantees the continuity of the greatest road building program in Australia's history, which has been progressively implemented during our two years of government. Together with the Australian bicentennial roads development program, Federal expenditure on roads will total $1,245m in 1985-86. The Federal road safety promotion and research program undertaken by the Federal Office of Road Safety is incorporated into these arrangements as it is reasonable for road users to fund this area of Federal roads involvement. The Australian land transport program, or ALTP as it will no doubt be known, also maintains our support for research into land transport undertaken through the Australian Road Research Board and the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation. Assistance is extended under the Bill to the interstate mainline railway network. Together with the establishment of the Railway Industry Council, this assistance will contribute to the development of a cohesive program to revive the Australian rail system. The Bill establishes a trust fund which will operate on a similar basis to the ABRD Trust Fund. It provides that an indexed share of the existing excise charge on motor spirit and diesel fuel will be paid into the ALTP Trust Fund based on collections from 1 July 1985 until 30 June 1990. The initial rate has been set at 3.66c per litre. Recognising the value in providing a transitional arrangement, rather than immediately switching to the new funding method, we have provided an assurance that ALTP funding will be $810m in the first year. Clause 14 of the Bill provides for an adjustment to the excise rate to that which would have precisely raised $810m in the first year. Thus the States, local government and road interest groups have the type of funding they sought, with the additional protection of a transitional arrangement involving a guaranteed funding level for year one. The future level of expenditure under ALTP will depend upon the following two factors: The rate of consumption of motor spirit and diesel, which is the best measure of road use; and the rate of movements in the consumer price index to maintain the ALTP excise component in real terms. As I have noted earlier, together with the $440m to be provided under the ABRD program, the Federal Government's road building program in 1985-86 will total $1,245m-an increase of 82 per cent on 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government. The legislation provides that specified maximum proportions of payments into the ALTP Trust Fund shall be allocated to the four roads categories and to road safety and to land transport research. These allocations have been decided after careful consideration. The Federal Government has full financial responsibility for the construction and maintenance of national roads with the State road authorities acting as design and construction agents. Accordingly funding for national roads has been determined on the basis of maintaining, in real terms, this year's national roads expenditure under the Roads Grants Act. The Federal Government is committed to achieving an upgraded national highway system by 1988. The distribution among States of moneys allocated for national roads is not specified in the legislation, but will be determined on the basis of meeting that objective. This approach follows the arrangements adopted for national roads under the ABRD program. Our Government also recognises the major responsibilities of local government for the development and upkeep of the local roads system. As a result funding for the local roads category in 1985-86 will also be maintained at the Roads Grants Act 1984-85 level in real terms. Accordingly there has been an adjustment to Federal funding for arterial roads. These roads are primarily a State responsibility and the States have always provided the bulk of the funding for their development. The Federal Government, for its part, has provided a major boost in assistance for these roads in recent years. Total Federal funding for arterial roads in 1985-86 will be 93 per cent more than the amount provided in 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government. This means that Federal expenditure on arterial roads has grown at a faster rate than for national or local roads. Funding for road safety and for land transport research will be limited to $5m in 1985-86, a marginal increase on the level of funding provided in the current year. Under the legislation there is also provision to fund the upgrading of the interstate mainline rail network. Funding will be conditional on the development of appropriate measures to improve the capacity of the network and the operational and commercial practices of the rail systems. Funding will be available as an option under the national roads category at the Federal Minister's discretion, or on request of the State Minister as an alternative under that State's rural arterial roads category. Overall, funding for railways will not exceed the contribution that railways make through their diesel excise payments to the ALTP Trust Fund. Sections 17 and 18 of the Bill separate funding arrangements into two periods covering the initial two years and the subsequent three years. This provision has been included in order to allow a review of the State relativities in respect of arterial and local roads categories. Allocations to these categories in the second period are limited to 90 per cent of their initial share. The Federal Minister is required by section 19 to allocate the balance between these categories by 31 March 1987. Given that this program continues until 1990 and that existing relativities are substantially unchanged from those determined on the basis of a 1975 Bureau of Roads report, it is desirable that such a review be undertaken. I expect to appoint shortly a panel to carry out an independent review of State shares. The provisions of sections 18 and 19 allow that review to be undertaken in a manner which minimises disruption to the road construction and maintenance programs of the States and local government. In order to provide some flexibility, sections 20 to 22 allow transfers between the various categories. I should emphasise that the transfer of funds from the urban arterial, rural arterial and local roads categories could only be undertaken at the request of, or with the agreement of, the relevant State Minister. Payments to the States or approved organisations or authorities are to be conditional upon the funds being expended for purposes approved by the Minister. The degree of Federal administrative involvement will vary from category to category. Federal approval will be required for construction projects and maintenance programs under the national, urban arterial and rural arterial roads categories. Federal administrative controls with respect to the national roads program will follow those currently applying under the ABRD legislation. They include provision for the setting of standards and the requirement for construction works to go to tender. In respect of the arterial roads categories, a number of changes have been made. These include a provision to allow maintenance work to be eligible for Federal assistance and a requirement for approval of construction projects to enable the Federal Government to have a say in where its funds are used. As with the Roads Grants Act, there is no requirement for arterial road construction projects to be subject to tender. The States have emphasised to me the serious consequences that such a requirement, had it been included, would have had on their day labour work forces, particularly in provincial areas. Recognising our acceptance of the State argument that arterial roads are primarily their responsibility, it would have been unreasonable to include such a requirement in this legislation. I have assured State Ministers that the controls in respect of the arterial roads categories will operate in a manner that achieves administrative simplicity. Accordingly, I have indicated that the project approvals will be based on relatively generalised descriptions to identify the location of the project, the type of works to be undertaken and the project cost. I will be seeking State co-operation to direct Federal funds to a relatively few major projects on the more significant sections of the arterial roads networks. Over time I expect to work together with the State to identify more clearly the network of major arterial roads which are of greater national significance and therefore to be accorded some priority in the allocation of Federal funds. This may at a latter stage involve the identification of a formal primary arterial road network. Assistance for local roads will again be distributed amongst States and local government authorities in each State in accordance with approved principles. No project approval arrangements will be involved and thus the overall arrangements are substantially in line with those applying to local roads under the Roads Grants Act. The arrangements also incorporate a new provision to allow bike paths to be founded under this category. Federal approval of interstate mainline railway projects is required to ensure that the projects will upgrade the network and be related to improvements in operational and commercial practices of the rail systems. Provision is also made for appropriate construction works to go to tender. This arrangement mirrors a similar requirement in respect of urban public transport projects applying under the ABRD program. The administrative provisions of the Bill will be substantially in accordance with those contained in the ABRD legislation. There are, however, a number of significant exceptions which I would bring to honourable members' attention. Section 32 of the Bill contains a number of provisions relating to obligations imposed upon the States and approved railway authorities. A number of these require appropriate recognition of the Federal road building effort, which constitutes over 35 per cent of total road expenditure. Similarly, Federal representatives are entitled to recognition of the efforts they make on behalf of their constituencies. As national highways are 100 per cent funded by the Federal Government, provision is included to allow the Minister to exercise some control over the display of signs on that network. Simplified administrative arrangements in respect of the standards of national roads construction are provided. Previously, there were provisions for extensive Federal involvement to determine whether the construction of national roads had been carried out to approved standards. Under ALTP all that will be required will be a certificate from a suitable person, obviously the head of the relevant State road authority, that construction has been carried out in accordance with applicable standards. Provision is also made for the proceeds of the sale of any land acquired by the State with Federal road funds provided since 1977 to be either repaid to the Federal Government or applied to road construction and maintenance purposes. This provision formalises an arrangement that was negotiated in 1977 by the then Federal Transport Minister with his State colleagues. It is desirable that it be given legislative basis particularly as the sums involved could be quite significant. This provision ensures that the proceeds of sale of land are applied to the original purpose for which they were provided. The areas where the Federal Minister may delegate his powers have been marginally curtailed. Section 37 requires that ministerial declarations and directions be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Over the life of the ALTP we will be able to make major progress along the path which has been the vision of a number of dedicated transport people since Australia's Federation. It is appropriate that I conclude by listing in simple form the objectives that I expect to achieve during the life of the legislation. These are: establish arrangements which identify clearly for motorists and taxpayers the contribution users make to the maintenance and upgrading of our road and other transport systems; in accordance with national priorities, assist the development and maintenance of Australia's land transport systems to facilitate the safe, reliable and efficient carriage of passengers and freight; develop the national highway system to standards appropriate to meet the growing needs for safe transport between the major centres of population; assist the development of urban arterial and rural arterial roads, in particular those which are of major national, commercial or industrial significance; enable State and local governments to develop and maintain local road systems; improve the capacity, quality and efficiency of the interstate mainline railway network; assist activities which will enhance the safety of road users, including motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists; and assist national research and development activities related to land transport. In just 26 months we have done more than any other government to develop a coherent approach to our national transport system. Major investigations have been undertaken in virtually all areas of Federal responsibility to establish the basis on which to implement vital programs like ALTP. Specifically, in this Bill we have the fulfilment of this Government's long-standing policy commitment to the improvement of our nation's road system-a system which under conservative governments was starved of essential investment funds. Roads are the arteries which carry the life-blood of Australia. They represent a major public investment in the infrastructure upon which the health and livelihood of our national economy depends. As a government, we are building better roads for Australia and this Bill will ensure that we continue to do so. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(6.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the Australian Shipping Commission with additional capital of $70,541,000. This additional capital is required to provide the Commission with a capital structure appropriate for a commercial enterprise and marks a further step in the Government's program of revitalising Australia's shipping industry. The Government's objective is to provide a sound base for the development of an efficient, competitive Australian shipping industry. Within this broad framework the Government is committed to ensuring the long term viability of its own shipping organisation. An efficient, profitable, commercially oriented Australian National Line is necessary to the overall effectiveness of the Australian shipping industry. When this Government came to office in 1983, ANL was in a desperate situation. Not only was the Line financially bankrupt, with millions of dollars owed to its creditors, but also management was ineffective, the organisation was inefficient and its industrial relations record was poor. The previous Government had starved it of capital funds and had not given it sufficient freedom to operate as a commercial organisation. The ANL management structure needed overhaul. The Government responded to these problems in a positive, co-ordinated way. In 1983 we provided ANL with an emergency capital injection of $90m to meet its immediate financial crisis. This injection consisted of $30m in cash and $60m for the conversion of outstanding Treasury loans. We also agreed to roll over remaining domestic Treasury loans totalling $50.5m as they fell due. We amended the Australian Shipping Commission Act to give ANL greater commercial freedom and to enable the top management to be strengthened. We created new positions of part time Chairman and Managing Director, and appointed to them people with extensive commercial experience. We took important steps to improve industrial relations in ANL and the shipping industry generally. The new ANL management has taken up the challenge set by the Government. It has rigorously overhauled and rationalised its organisational structure. It has critically reviewed all its commercial operations. In the light of this review some unprofitable services have been terminated. A program of disposing of uneconomic vessels and terminals has commenced. Steps are being taken to improve the productivity and profitability of its vessels and terminals. The effects of these tough decisions are now appearing, as clear evidence that the Government's policies are working. The ANL declared an operating profit of $3.3m in 1983-84 compared with an operating loss of $18.8m in 1982-83. I freely acknowledge and appreciate the contribution that the unions have made to achieve this result. But much more remains to be done before ANL can free itself from the legacy of past mismanagement. Continuing support and co-operation from the unions is needed to achieve this in what are tough market conditions for the shipping industry. The extent of this task is revealed by its 1983-84 annual report. Past management had masked its actions by adopting accounting practices that over-valued the Line's assets and did not record the lease liabilities it had incurred. Those practices occurred under a so-called free enterprise private sector government. In fact they were endorsed by that government. Abnormal adjustments were necessary to correct this and reveal a truer asset situation. The result was a declared accumulated loss of $129.5m as at 30 June 1984. This meant that its accumulated losses had exceeded its capital and reserves by $3.7m. ANL was still technically bankrupt. The Government determined last year that ANL's capital structure should be examined in greater detail to enable responsible decision to be taken on its longer term financial viability. A committee of officials was instructed to carry out this examination. It included representatives from the Departments of Transport, Finance and the Treasury and the ANL. The committee's report, the most comprehensive ever undertaken on the Line's finances, makes it clear that ANL operates in a very competitive environment both internationally and domestically. It has very high debt servicing charges, a legacy of past government policies, and its margin of revenues over costs is low. In 1983-84 this margin was less than 1 per cent. ANL is thus particularly susceptible to downturns in trading conditions, exchange rate movements and losses from industrial disputes. In the light of this report the Government decided to tackle ANL's financial problems at their source. The Line's high indebtedness, the result of the past Government's approach to financing ANL's expansion into overseas trades, was the key problem that had to be solved. The $70.5m capital injection the Government decided on does this in two ways. First, it allows $50.5m of existing Treasury loans to be converted to capital. This, by reducing interest payments, provides a significant contribution to ANL's cash position. Secondly, the remaining $20m will be used to repay a Treasury on-lent loan falling due on 1 June 1985. This cash injection will help ANL get over a projected cash deficiency in 1985-86 and 1986-87. At the same time ANL's capital base has been re-established on a properly commercial basis. The Government now believes that the $70.5m that this Bill will provide when enacted will put ANL into a position where it has the flexibility and incentive necessary to pursue improved commercial performance, to continue to restructure its activities and to seek out profitable new business opportunities. In saying this it should be made clear that ANL has not been given a feather-bedded path to future prosperity. The international shipping industry remains severely depressed with fierce competition coming from foreign shipowners in a very depressed market at least in the short run. On the Australian coast, competition is also increasing, for example, as new services start across the Bass Strait. There can be no doubt that ANL and its employees have a difficult task ahead of them. In short, the Government has made what it considers to be a major effort to revitalise ANL. It has remedied the undercapitalisation that past governments should never have allowed to occur. It is now up to ANL management, its employees and the unions. It has been made clear to each that the Government expects continuing improvements in ANL's performance to generate and provide the cash required for investment in new ships and equipment and to pay dividends. The Government is confident that this legislation provides the basis for a commercially viable national shipping line that will benefit all ANL customers, the Australian economy, and Australians generally. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) Adjourned. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Earlier today the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) raised a matter of privilege. He referred to a notice displayed in the Parliament House post office advising of a union ban on all mail dispatches, including priority paid and express courier mail, to Queensland until 13 May 1985. My duty is to decide whether the facts, as presented, constitute prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege. The particular circumstances applying in the matter raised by the right honourable gentleman, as I understand them, are that union bans have been placed in respect of the conveyance of all mail to Queensland. These actions are not, I understand, directed in any particular way at members of parliament. The situation is rather that members, along with other people in the community, may be affected. Members are thus not being subjected to particular action in their capacity as members. I have had recourse to the records of our own Parliament and to those of the United Kingdom House of Commons to assist me in this matter. Whilst I acknowledge that members may be inconvenienced by the actions in question, I am particularly aware of the general reluctance of the Parliament to extend the limits of contempt and of the general principle that the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and only when satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members and committees from substantial interference with their functions. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the matter raised does not constitute a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I cannot, therefore, accord precedence to a motion in respect of the matter. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.14) —Madam Acting Speaker, I move: That the Acting Speaker's ruling be dissented from. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion in writing? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. I hand a copy to the Clerk. Mr MacKellar —I second the motion, Madam Acting Speaker, and reserve my right to speak. Mr SINCLAIR —It is a difficult issue-I think that every member of this House accepts that-to determine whether a prima facie case is made out in respect of a breach of privilege. Obviously, any procedure or action which interrupts the normal business of a member of this place is a matter that raises concern. In common with many honourable members, I turned to see what privileges had previously been determined and in particular to see whether there existed any relevant procedures within our Standing Orders or within the Hansard record of your predecessors, Madam Acting Speaker, which might have relevance to this instance. Perhaps the one case that most accords with this category is that which was raised by the then honourable member for Maranoa, as reported at page 731 of House of Representatives Hansard of 15 March 1978. The matter, however, related specifically to an industrial dispute within the Australian Capital Territory, affecting the distribution of mail from Canberra out around the electorate. In his determination, Mr Speaker Snedden responded-I refer honourable members to page 760 of Hansard of the same date-as follows: I am informed that the strike is not directed at the Parliament but involves the non-conveyance of mails for whole of Canberra in which the parliamentary deliveries are but a part. As I understand your ruling, Madam Acting Speaker, it similarly identifies the fact that this is an industrial dispute not applicable specifically to members of the Parliament, but certainly including the members of Parliament within its embrace. To that degree, therefore, it parallels the decision of your predecessor. However, I suggest that the reason why I must dissent from your ruling is that in this instance it is not a dispute affecting Canberra and hence the people of the Australian Capital Territory as a whole, but it affects mail into and out of one State of this Commonwealth. I suggest that that puts the whole question of this determination into an entirely different context. When looking at the determination of just what is meant by parliamentary privilege and what we are talking about, I think it is worth while turning to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. I refer to the nineteenth edition. I know that there are a good many different editions in the House. On page 136 of that nineteenth edition, May states: It would be vain to attempt in enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. I put it to you, Madam Acting Speaker, that your ruling is in error because there is no doubt that this mail dispute, affecting delivery into and out of the State of Queensland, one State alone of the Commonwealth-a dispute which involves both a Commonwealth instrumentality and, indirectly, this Federal Government, which is putting itself on line with the Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade of Queensland in a most reprehensible fashion-is an act which obstructs or impedes this House and the Senate in the performance of their functions, on the first part, and which obstructs or impedes the members of this House and senators in the other place in the discharge of their duties. Accordingly, Madam Acting Speaker, I put it to you that your ruling is in error. On the second matter, it might be worth while, before turning back to our House of Representatives Practice with respect to your ruling, to look at page 151 of the same edition, where May states: Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege. In that respect there is a reference to a House of Commons precedent which shows that in regard to a letter sent by a parliamentary agent to a member with respect to the promoters of a private Bill, an interruption to its delivery constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. Madam Acting Speaker, I put it to you that we are not finally determining the question of privilege; we are determining whether or not an act by this Government and by the Australian Postal Commission, a Commonwealth instrumentality, is tantamount to seeing the members of this place in any way inhibited in the performance of their duty. I put it to you that that second point-that is, that they are acts tending indirectly to obstruct members in the discharge of their duties-has demonstrably been filled by the actions of Australia Post in putting up this notice. I point out to all honourable members that this notice was put on the counter of the Parliament House post office. It is not something which is applicable to everybody. It applies particularly to members of this place, who are being told that they are not allowed and will not be able to send mail for the period up to 13 May. So it affects all members of this place. For that reason, I contend that it is a prima facie breach of privilege and it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges. I again draw honourable members' attention to page 160 of that same edition of Erskine May, where it states: As regards the forwarding of complaints by members of the armed forces to Members of Parliament, while it is the policy of service departments that the usual service channels should be used wherever possible, service regulations give an absolute right to servicemen to communicate with Members on all matters, including service matters, so long as there is no disclosure of secret information. Madam Acting Speaker, I put it to you that exactly the same right applies in Australia. Because of this postal dispute servicemen will certainly be inhibited in contacting their many members of parliament in this place who would wish to try to pursue, quite properly, matters that fall within the category which I have just read from Erskine May. Within Erskine May there is a series of precedents which suggest that there is a prima facie breach of privilege in this case. I would like to run briefly through two other precedents before I go on to some of the facts that surround this matter. I think it is worth turning to page 643, I think it is the first edition of the House of Representatives Practice, which states: Parliamentary privilege relates to the rights and immunities which belong to the Parliament, its Members and others, which are essential for the operation of the Parliament. These rights and immunities allow the Parliament to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role, for Members to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents and for others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities without obstruction or fear of prosecution. Pensioners-any people-who wish to contact members of this Parliament and are inhibited by this deliberate act to prevent members sending mail from this place to Queensland and Queenslanders sending their mail to the Parliament are covered by that general provision. The House of Representatives Practice continues: Privileges are not the prerogative of Members in their personal capacities. It has been stated: Insofar as the House claims and Members enjoy those rights and immunities which are grouped under the general description of 'privileges', they are claimed and enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity and by its Members on behalf of the citizens whom they represent. . . . When any of these rights and immunities, both of the Members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity . . . are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament. Madam Acting Speaker, I put it to you that that again is directly within the compass of this industrial stoppage, endorsed by Australia Post and supported by the Australian Government, and it deliberately intervenes in the proper process of the members of this Parliament and their constituents in the conduct of their lawful duty. I put it to you also that it is worth noting that section 92 of the Australian Constitution states: On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. So we have not only a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege but also an interruption to the normal distribution of services and trade within and between the States. I believe that not only is that a matter of a breach of parliamentary privilege, but also it may well constitute an act contrary to the Australian Constitution. If we look at page 645 of the fifth edition of Odgers's Australian Senate Practice we find a statement by Sir Barnett Cocks, a former Clerk of the House of Commons. He comments: Under the law of Parliament, any act which obstructs or impedes the House in its functions, or any Member of the House in his duties in the Commons, may be treated as a contempt, even though there may be no precedent for the offence. Odgers's Australian Senate Practice continues: At the beginning of each session at Westminster, the following Sessional Order is made: That the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed . . . or in the passage leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid. It continues: This freedom from obstruction in the coming to or the going from the House derives from the undoubted right of Parliament to the full service of its Members. It is a privilege which derives from the right and need of the House of Commons to protect itself, and in so doing to protect its Members. There is little doubt that there is any amount of precedents that show that any interruption that affects the contact between members of the public and members of the parliament is such that it can constitute a breach of privilege. Madam Acting Speaker, I put it to you that all we need do in the present instance is constitute a prima facie case. We are not finally establishing the full details of it, but what we on this side of the Parliament seek to do is to ensure that the Privileges Committee can look at the circumstances which interrupt the passage of mail between the State of Queensland and the Parliament, between members of Parliament and that State. We look to ensure that there is a freedom of trade and commerce. We look to ensure that the Government does not give any countenance to the blackmail of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the members of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia who are seeking to disrupt the supply of power to people in Queensland. That is the genesis of the dispute. The ultimate is that this Government in this place is seeking to support an action by Australia Post, a statutory authority, which is interrupting members in the conduct of their duty. It is necessary for members in this place to recognise that it is not sufficient for the Parliament just to sit back and accept that there can be industrial action which precludes members from proper contact with their constituents. Madam Acting Speaker, I believe that it is a difficult decision for you to take. I appreciate the time, care and consideration which has been given both to an examination of appropriate precedents and to the responsibilities which you now exercise. I think we need to remember that, in determining privilege, certainly there is no reason to extend the bounds beyond that on which determination has already been made. But it is essential that nobody in the Australian community sees an action taken by a wilful group of trade unionists to disrupt members in the conduct of their responsibilities. It is necessary that people in the community understand that those who are elected as members of this place have not just a right but a responsibility to conduct their affairs and relationships with their constituents in a way that is not interrupted by any procedure, and certainly not by an industrial stoppage. This notice to which I have referred was put on the post office desk. This is not just any post office; it is the post office of the Parliament of Australia. This direction is not being given specifically to the community at large; in this instance it is a direction being given to everybody who uses the Parliament House post office. Madam Acting Speaker, when you gave your opinion earlier you talked about a ban applying to the community at large. This particular ban about which I am protesting is one that has occurred in this Parliament, it is one that applies directly to ensure that members of this place take note that they will not be able to conduct the affairs that they have a responsibility to undertake for their constituents. I can understand the difficulties in determining how far this law applies. If we take this notice as not being a breach of privilege, we need to remember that we can find all sorts of unlikely circumstances which might well be an extension of the present ban. To what extent will this Parliament allow industrial action to stop its procedures? If honourable members were precluded by industrial action from coming to Canberra and undertaking deliberations on matters of substance for this nation, if there were to be an industrial stoppage and a notice placed in the Parliament that there would be no access into this Parliament for honourable members or no communications, that would certainly be a breach of privilege. Indeed, the House of Commons each year promulgates a special procedure to ensure that such action will not be permitted. A physical obstruction is a breach of privilege. To what degree is it different from this instance? This is not a physical obstruction, but it is an obstruction in communication. It is a deliberate obstruction because there is a notice on the post office desk. It is not something that is out there in the wild, it is here in the Parliament. What lies behind it all and what concerns me is that, quite obviously, this Government sees fit to give a statutory authority licence to ensure that there is not only just tacit support for the trade union movement but also positive support against the actions and considered responsibilities of an independent democratic State in this Federation. Madam Acting Speaker, it is necessary that this Parliament very carefully deliberate on the determination you have made. It is a very serious matter when a trade union can interrupt the affairs of parliamentarians in this way. It is a matter which certainly does prevent a range of people from having proper contact. It means that members in this place are inhibited from conducting their affairs as they would wish. It means that my colleagues from Queensland-I know there are many of them because the people of Queensland know full well that the Government Party little represents them here-know that they are not going to be able to communicate by mail with their constituents. They know that if their constituents write to them about the assets test, which was before the Parliament today, about the drought that so adversely affects so many areas in Australia, about the problems that we are told will flow from the discussions on the tax changes that might be before the summit or about the problems that affect any of the financial deliberations that will come before the Parliament next Tuesday, the mail will be delayed. They know that they will be precluded from communicating with their constituents. A decision of this kind is one which, I believe, must be taken with great care and deliberation. Madam Acting Speaker, I believe that Australian Senate Practice, May's Parliamentary Practice and our own House of Representatives Practice detail determinations which show that the determination you have made is in error. For that reason I moved dissent from your ruling. We need to know that you are going to act in the interests of members of this place. If your decision applies, it will mean that there can by any wilful interruption to the proceedings of this place. It does not apply in this instance only to the mail services, it applies by reference to any other communication by any honourable member with his constituency if it lies in one particular State. I do not believe that it is sufficient to suggest that the precedents are not applicable simply because others will also be affected by the failure to deliver mail. In this instance parliamentary members are particularly affected. Because it applies to one State I suggest to you that the decision is quite different from the decision taken on an earlier occasion by Mr Speaker Snedden. I believe that it should be distinguished from that decision. I believe that this House should determine that a prima facie case has been established by the presentation of this notice which was on the desk of the post office in Parliament House. I, therefore, believe that we should endorse this motion of dissent from your ruling. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr MacKellar —I second the motion. Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 8 p.m. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.00) —Madam Acting Speaker, the Opposition, as I am sure you are aware, has not moved this motion of dissent from your ruling in any sense in a personal way. Matters of privilege affect all members of Parliament and in fact the question of privileges generally is absolutely fundamental to the operation of the Westminster system of government. I think it is wise for us all to reflect for a moment on what was one of the bases of privilege in the first place, when members of parliament in Westminster were at one stage being obstructed from travelling to the parliament to conduct their business, were being interfered with in their passage to the parliament, and as a result the Westminster Parliament took particular action to provide them with privilege. This is a very important aspect of the life of any parliamentarian particularly one operating under the Westminster system. What it is really all about is the interference in the actions of a member in the pursuance of his duties. The idea of privilege is to stop any undue interference being placed upon any member of the parliament to prevent him carrying out his duties properly and fully, or to coerce him in any way, to attempt to place undue pressure upon him in order to get him to change his opinion, or to cause him concern. We have here a very serious matter because there is no doubt that members of parliament who represent electorates in Queensland do have the need to communicate with constituents in that State, as do those in the Ministry or the shadow Ministry who, as part of their broader duties, will need to have contact with people living in Queensland. Here we have a situation where a trade union has placed a ban on the transference of mail from Parliament House to Queensland and from Queensland to Parliament House. There are two aspects of this matter to which I think we need to pay attention. Firstly, we have a situation where a trade union is in fact setting itself above the authority of the Parliament. That is a matter which should be of concern to all members of the Parliament, no matter which particular political party they belong to. We know that in the majority of cases members of the Australian Labor Party owe their positions in this House to support from one trade union or another and therefore they are placed in an invidious situation because it could be said that they are acting at the behest of a trade union. In fact, there have been some cases recorded in history of matters of privilege being brought up in relation to attempted pressure from trade unions upon members of trade unions who were members of the House. The other problem, of course, is that members of this Parliament, whether they be in the Senate or the House of Representatives, have had placed upon them an imposition which prevents them from sending mail to Queensland or receiving mail from Queensland, as I understand it. In my view that constitutes a contempt of this House and a breach of privilege. I quote from Odgers's Australian Senate Practice although, as I understand it, it may not be as applicable to this House as it is to the Senate. However, I think it is instructive for us to read what was said by Sir Barnett Cocks, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, and quoted in that publication: Under the law of Parliament, any act which obstructs or impedes the House in its functions, or any Member of the House in his duties in the Commons, may be treated as a contempt, even though there be no precedent for the offence. Madam Acting Speaker, I know you have relied upon precedents for the ruling you have made. I put it to you that the quote I have just read suggests that there is no need in this particular case to look to precedent for the decision that you take. There is another aspect of this matter which has not been brought up at this stage but which I think needs to be at least considered. The post office in Parliament House operates within the precincts of the parliamentary Houses and as such comes within the jurisdiction of yourself, as the Acting Speaker, and the President of the Senate. As I understand it, any group or organisation which operates or has premises within this House or carries out its duties within this House must obey the rulings of the Speaker or the President. In this particular case I wonder whether or not the post office, situated within the precincts of Parliament House, made the decision it has taken available to you, Madam Acting Speaker, or to the President, or sought permission for its operations to be carried out, or rather not carried out, in this particular way. If it did not, I suggest that it is at least arguable that you and the President should look very closely at the operations of the post office within the precincts of the House to ensure that in so acting it has not rendered itself guilty of the charge of breach of privilege. The other point I would like to raise has also been raised by the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). I quote from a section in House of Representatives Practice, at page 655, headed 'Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct'. The first item under that heading is 'The offer of a bribe'; the second is 'Attempted intimidation of Members', under which it is stated: To attempt by any means to influence a member in his conduct as a member is a breach of privilege. That, on the face of it, is obviously the case in this particular circumstance. One could argue, and it has been argued, that the ban applies generally, that it does not apply only to members of parliament. But I suggest that privilege is available only to members of parliament and that therefore separates them out from the general population. That is why questions of privilege are so important to this House and to its individual members. Members of this House, whether they like it or not, because of their membership of the House attract to themselves the concept of parliamentary privilege. The argument that just because a particular situation applies to the population in general, therefore members of parliament must put up with it, does not take into account the overriding responsibility of members of parliament to carry out their duties on behalf of their constituents. There is no doubt, Madam Acting Speaker, that the prevention of the passage of mail from and to members of parliament obviously interferes with their rights and duties as members of this House. Therefore, there is a very clear case in this particular circumstance for this question of privilege to be looked at perhaps more closely than has been the case up to now. We are not suggesting that the final analysis will not be in line with the ruling you have so far given. However, I put it to you, Madam Acting Speaker, that the matter was raised earlier today but the consideration of the matter was not extensive. I am not criticising your rapidity of thought or consideration in relation to this matter. Mr Robert Brown —That is a reflection on the Acting Speaker. Mr MacKELLAR —We have an interjection from an honourable member who is here as a representative of the trade unions. He has not got the courage to stand up to a situation in which the trade unions-- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Warringah will resume his seat for a moment, please. I suggest to the House that this is a very important matter which is being debated and the Chair would appreciate it if honourable members would cease interjecting. Mr MacKELLAR —The situation is that we have a government which is beholden to the trade unions. Everybody knows that and that in this instance, with action being carried out against the State of Queensland, this Government is craven in its acceptance of the Australian Council of Trade Union actions in relation to attempted blockades and other attempted action against individuals and the public generally. One of the worst aspects of this entire situation is that the postal service is involved. Here we have a Commonwealth instrumentality involved in a ban on mail passing to and from Queensland from members of parliament and to members of parliament. I think if for no other reason than the fact that it is a Commonwealth instrumentality and it is another example of unions seeking to place themselves above the Parliament, every parliamentarian in this place should treat the matter with the utmost seriousness. Not to do so is to accept an inferior position created by actions carried out by unelected people throughout the community and to denigrate their positions as members of parliament. We are suggesting that the matter should be looked at in more detail because there are some real ramifications which flow from it. I have already mentioned the fact that the action is being carried out within the precincts of Parliament House. I take it that neither you nor the President were consulted before that action was taken and I think it is your responsibility and the President's responsibility to oversee what does take place within the precincts of Parliament House. Above all, we as parliamentarians have to look extremely carefully at any attempt to interfere with the overriding right of this Parliament and its members to decide the laws of the land and to act for the good of the government of the country. Anything which interferes with the opportunities and rights of individual members of parliament, no matter which side of the House they sit upon, should be looked at with the utmost seriousness. I am not suggesting, Madam Acting Speaker, that you have not looked at it with the utmost seriousness. I am suggesting, though, that the matter is one which requires more consideration and that is the reason why the Opposition has moved this dissent from your ruling. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.13) —Madam Acting Speaker, this is the 131st time since Federation that a dissent has been moved from the Speaker's ruling. There have been six occasions when dissent motions have been successful, and I have no doubt in my mind that everybody in this House, including the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), knows that this motion does not warrant success. This motion lacks the substance to be carried by this House. It would set a precedent of utter nonsense as far as privilege in this Parliament is concerned. Let us deal with the matter as the House became aware of the events of the day. This matter was first raised in the Parliament by the right honourable member for New England when he declared that a sign which he said had been displayed in the post office in Parliament House suggested that mail was not being dispatched to certain areas. I understand from the people working at the post office that they were not asked whether the sign could be taken away. Some member of the Opposition just grabbed the sign and took it from the post office. The person who did that ought to return to the post office and apologise to the employees working there. The bans have not been imposed by the Australian Government authority Australia Post; they of course have been imposed by the unions involved. The mail is being accepted by Australia Post but not dispatched. The bans do not only affect the mail of members of parliament; they affect all mail. Madam Acting Speaker, when, based on all the precedents that Parliament has to offer you, you gave your statement before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I would have thought that the right honourable member for New England, having raised this matter, would have accepted that your explanation and your ruling were in fact correct based on matters that have previously been raised not only in this Parliament but also in the House of Commons, upon which our practices are so much based. I repeat, Madam Acting Speaker, what you told the House: The particular circumstances applying in the matter raised by the right honourable gentleman, as I understand them, are that union bans have been placed in respect of the conveyance of all mail to Queensland. These actions are not, I understand, directed in any particular way at members of parliament. The situation is rather that members, along with other people in the community, may be affected. Members are thus not being subjected to particular action in their capacity as members. I have had recourse to the records of our own Parliament and to those of the United Kingdom House of Commons to assist me in this matter. Whilst I acknowledge that members may be inconvenienced by the actions in question, I am particularly aware of the general reluctance of the Parliament to extend the limits of contempt and of the general principle that the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and only when satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members and committees from substantial interference with their functions. Madam Acting Speaker, in quite a concise and succinct statement you outlined to the Parliament what is perfectly correct. This motion of dissent brings into ridicule the very operation of privilege in the Parliament. May I remind honourable members opposite that a number of parliamentary democracies have done away with privilege because of the way in which it was abused, which reflected upon the Chair and denigrated the role of the Chair. House of Representatives Practice, at page 222, states: The procedure of dissenting from a ruling of the Speaker is not shared in the practice of the lower Houses of other major Commonwealth countries, namely, the United Kingdom, Canada and India. Before the dissent provision was abolished in the Canadian House of Commons, Laundry stated: In practice, the rule tends to encourage Members to challenge Speakers' rulings, and when carried to extreme lengths . . . its use can seriously undermine the authority of the Chair and lead to a serious disruption of business. It is also open to criticism on the ground that a Speaker, in order to avoid the damage to his prestige and authority which the rejection of one of his rulings by the House would inevitable involve, might tend to rule as a matter of course in favour of the majority in order to ensure that his rulings will be sustained. It is to be hoped that exercises that have been undertaken by the Opposition today will not lead to the abolition of the use of privilege in this House. Mr Sinclair —Are you threatening us? Mr YOUNG —I am not threatening the Opposition at all. The right honourable member for New England knows that very shortly in this Parliament time may be set aside for a debate of this nature. It is not so very long ago that a matter of privilege was referred to and discussed by the Committee of Privileges. It thought there was a prima facie case. The Parliament can get itself into an awful mess if it thinks that every time it is slightly upset by the actions of someone it can interpret these as a direction to try to prevent members of parliament from carrying out their duties. Allegations of breaches of privilege are serious matters which the House must deal with in all seriousness. Motions of dissent from the Speaker's rulings are even more serious. I have no wish and no intention to make this issue one of partisan controversy and division. I have examined this case on its merits with full regard to the precedents which are available. Contempt is a broad and vague notion. Essentially we are called upon to judge questions which may affect the ability of members to carry out their official duties. In practice assessing cases of contempt becomes an exercise in political, professional and personal judgment. That exercise must be backed up by a precedent, by experience and, most of all, by common sense. I find that precedent, experience and common sense have all led the one way in helping me to make up my mind on this case. I have been guided by the consistent concern of our Parliament and of other Westminster systems around the world. They have remained reluctant to extend the boundaries of contempt and have resorted to exercising the penal jurisdiction of Parliament as sparingly as possible. I refer honourable members to a specific case which occurred in Westminster when the Speaker was asked to rule about pickets trying to prevent members from entering the Parliament. He said: I now have to rule upon the complaint of breach of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, . . . ''namely, the action of certain public servants and those inciting them to frustrate the work of Parliament''. I wish to make as clear as I can to the House my function, as I see it, in a matter such as this. My duty is to decide whether in my judgment the facts alleged fall sufficiently clearly within an area in which a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House has been found by the House on a previous occasion to have been committed, or whether they fall sufficiently clearly within an area in which a possible breach of privilege or contempt should be considered, so that I should allow a motion relating to the complaint to have precedence. As the House knows, I dislike the term ''prima facie case'', because I think that that implies a judgment on the merits of the case. If I decide in the negative, that is not necessarily the end of the matter. The House could come to a decision on the point on a motion moved subsequently after notice. In the present instance I know of no precedent for the House having reached decision upon, or indeed even having formally considered, a similar case. There has also been of recent years a reluctance to extend the limits of contempt. Accordingly, although important issues are involved affecting the efficiency and convenience of the house, which need careful consideration at some stage, and perhaps not only by the House, I have come to the conclusion that I should not allow a motion relating to the hon. Member's complaint to have precedence over the Orders of the Day. As I have said earlier, this is not the first time this situation has occurred. A similar ruling was also given in 1978 when the former member for Maranoa, Mr Corbett, raised exactly the same question about a mail strike and about its impact upon the delivery of mail to his electorate from this Parliament House. Exactly the same decision was given by the Speaker in 1978 as has been given by the Acting Speaker now. Mr Leo McLeay —Who was the Speaker then? Mr YOUNG —The Speaker then was elected by a conservative government. We do not have to go back too far to find examples. One may recall action by the pilots who were going to stop transport to Canberra because of actions by the Government relating to a number of matters, one of which was the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. We did not hear the Opposition saying then: 'We have to do something about the pilots because they are preventing members of parliament from reaching the Parliament'. Madam Acting Speaker, your ruling is perfectly correct. It holds the Parliament in good stead. It cannot be misused as a precedent in future perhaps for frivolously wasting the time of Parliament on matters of privilege. Privilege, as I have said, is an enormously important weapon in the hands of this Parliament. It ought to be respected as such. The work that has been done by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege under the chairmanship of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will be up for debate in the Parliament. Hopefully, some of the mistakes previous Parliaments have made about how they thought they could interpret privilege will not be made in the future as a result of the hard work that has been done by the Committee. I invite honourable members opposite after this event to look at the precedents of parliament when they test their own consciences about this issue in deciding whether they think the action has been taken by the right honourable member for New England tonight is correct or otherwise. It is not correct and we reject it out of hand. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —It was claimed that the matter before us is frivolous. I quote from section 94 of the Postal Services Act 1975. It says: A person shall not wilfully obstruct or hinder the conveyance or delivery by or on behalf of the Commission of any mail or postal article. Penalty-Imprisonment for 1 year. This is not a lighthearted or frivolous matter. I thoroughly object to the suggestion that it is. Original question put. The House divided. (Madam Acting Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. (Teller) Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) 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.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.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. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Hurford, C. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C.Holding, A. C. Connolly, D. M.Hayden, W. G. Smith, W.Jenkins, H. A. Sullivan, K. J.Tickner, R. E. Wilson, I. B. C.Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of two Bills being introduced concurrently which provide a legislative basis for decisions previously announced by the Government on the collection and disbursement of levy payments under the Bass Strait freight equalisation scheme. The amendments are in the nature of technical adjustments and arise primarily from changes in assessed freight costs and the need to correct anomalies in the rules governing the pattern of disbursements following the introduction of a partial allocation scheme for Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January 1985 and the closure of the BP refinery at Westernport, Victoria, during February 1985. The operation of the freight equalisation scheme, and the question of whether there should be any further change in the levy redistribution formula, will be further considered in light of the outcome of the Government's review of the desirability of accelerated movement towards a free market for indigenous crude oil. The purpose of this first Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984 to give effect to variations in the rate of adjustment levy imposed on unstabilised crude petroleum oil produced in the Gippsland Basin in Bass Strait and announced in Parliament on 27 February 1985. The amendments increase the adjustment levy to $1.39 per kilolitre from 1 January 1985 and to $1.96 per kilolitre from 1 March 1985 in line with changes in the assessed costs of coastal freight movements of Bass Strait crude oil and decisions announced by the Government last October on the proportion of these costs to be redistributed among refiners. In order to minimise the legislative burden which may arise from future variations in the levy rate, clause 5 of the Bill defines the per kilolitre adjustment levy as a fixed 65 per cent of the special freight allowance component of the import parity price of Bass Strait crude oil as determined from time to time by the Minister. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. The amount of revenue raised through the adjustment levy is disbursed to eligible companies in accordance with provisions of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill is the second of two interrelated Bills which give effect to changes in the operation of the Bass Strait coastal freight adjustment scheme following the introduction of a partial allocation scheme for Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January 1985 and the closure in February 1985 of the BP refinery at Westernport in Victoria. This Bill amends the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act in three substantive respects. First, it provides for consequential amendments of the Act to harmonise its references to adjustment levy with the new rates of levy being introduced by parallel amendments of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act. Secondly, it provides for reimbursement to the producers of amounts of levy paid on domestic free market sales from 1 January 1985 when the partial allocation scheme came into operation. Thirdly, it introduces a new basis for calculating each refiner's share in monthly disbursements from the Fund, designed to ensure that the new pattern of coastal movements of Bass Strait crude oil following the closure of the BP refinery at Westernport is reflected immediately in the pattern of disbursements. This is done by basing disbursements of levy collected after 1 March 1985 on the most recent six months movements. This Bill also introduces several minor changes of a drafting nature. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement a number of recent Government decisions in relation to the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit the broadcasting of a matter. The proposed amendments may be summarised as follows: In relation to the miscellaneous amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Bill will address four issues. These are: Firstly, the ABC will be empowered to establish subsidiary companies and joint ventures to undertake authorised business activities; secondly, the position of the staff elected director on the Board of the ABC will be formalised; thirdly, the ABC will be permitted to appoint officers as unattached officers in line with the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922; and fourthly, the forfeiture of office of ABC staff will be provided for in circumstances identical to those provided for in the Public Service Act. The Bill will also repeal the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit the broadcasting or televising of any matter. The Minister has the power to prohibit items being broadcast by the Special Broadcasting Service under section 78A of the Broadcasting and Television Act, broadcasting by the commercial licencees under section 99 (3) of the same Act and broadcasting by the ABC under section 78 (1) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. It is not expected that these measures will result in any costs to the Commonwealth. While the ABC's power to establish subsidiary companies is designed to establish a more efficient and profitable operation of the Corporation's commercial activities, it is not possible, at this stage, to estimate the amount of dividends or profits that the Corporation will earn. On 17 March 1985, I foreshadowed legislative amendments which would enable the ABC to establish subsidiaries and to enter into other forms of joint venture. The Bill provides that the ABC may form or participate with other persons in the formation of companies, partnerships or other joint ventures which are to carry on an authorised business. An authorised business is, in turn, confined to the current range of the Corporation's permitted activities. The provision does not widen the categories of the Corporation's business activities; it modernises its corporate structure and enables it to join with the private sector in the furtherance of its activities in a more modern business like way. Mr Deputy Speaker, the ABC is essentially a non-competitive authority operating in a fiercely competitive and commercial environment. It has some commercial operations such as merchandising and concert management; however, the ABC is not at present able to build effectively on its potential for developing such operations solely out of its own resources. The Government considers that by enabling the Corporation to establish subsidiary companies or to enter into joint ventures with other business groups, it will be able more effectively to utilise its expertise and resources. These business enterprises will be required to generate at least sufficient revenue to support their activities and where possible generate returns to the Corporation which may be applied to specific activities or broadcasting purposes such as the encouragement of Australian content in ABC drama productions. Some examples of the types of appropriate activities include concert management, the hiring out of spare capacity, such as film production equipment and studios during seasonal lulls, audience research and program sales. There is considerable merit in allowing the ABC's commercial activities the same freedom that applies to the activities of a commercial authority such as Telecom. In fact, the legislative amendments are modelled on section 10A of the Telecommunications Act 1975. Government control would be maintained over the types of activities undertaken by the ABC utilising this new power. Before the ABC can enter into such an arrangement or devote funds to it, the approval of the Minister for Communications is necessary. Further, I will consult with the Treasurer and Minister for Finance before reaching any decision on such proposals. Also any agreement or contract between the Corporation and a subsidiary company must include a provision empowering the Corporation to terminate the agreement or contract if the venture ceases to undertake an activity approved by the Minister and the Minister may direct the Corporation to dispose of its interests in the company or terminate the agreement or the contract. On 18 April 1985 I foreshadowed that the Government intended to provide statutory backing for the position of a staff elected director on the Board of the ABC. As honourable members will be aware, a representative of ABC staff, Mr Thomas Molomby, was appointed to the ABC Board on 15 December 1983. The purpose of these legislative amendments is to formalise the position of a staff elected director on the Board. This director will be automatically appointed to the Board following the declaration of the results of an election by ABC staff. The staff elected director will hold office for a term of two years whereas the other non-executive directors hold office for a period of five years. In other respects the staff elected director will have the same powers and functions as the other non-executive directors. Because of the rather unusual profile of ABC staff, the Bill goes to some lengths to define the eligibility of candidates and electors. Eligibility extends to full time employees who are defined as those who are employed for 24 or more hours per week and to persons who are contracted to perform services for the Corporation under the direction and control of the Managing Director or another officer of the Corporation. The Bill also allows for the staff elected director to have a deputy. Two further legislative changes will be introduced to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act in respect of ABC staffing arrangements. These changes are consistent with provisions applying in the Australian Public Service. A new provision will empower the Managing Director to appoint a new officer as an unattached officer. This is in line with the power of the Public Service Board under section 42 of the Public Service Act 1922. The introduction of this section will give the ABC greater flexibility in staffing matters and enable it to recruit people to undertake tasks related to a range of positions or areas of work within the ABC. The second amendment will introduce a forfeiture of office provision for continued absenteeism of ABC staff. The proposed amendment is based on a similar provision in the Public Service Act 1922, section 66A. The provision empowers the Managing Director to notify an officer who is absent on unauthorised leave for an extended period that he will be deemed to have retired unless the officer returns to duty or explains the absence to the Managing Director within two weeks of receiving the notice. As a safeguard an officer who has been deemed to have retired may apply to the Managing Director for reappointment to the Service. Where the Managing Director refuses such an application the officer may appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board against the refusal. The Disciplinary Appeal Board may confirm the refusal or recommend to the Managing Director that the appellant be reappointed. The Managing Director must accept such a recommendation. On 18 April 1985 I announced that the Government intended to seek amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to repeal the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit radio and television broadcasts. It is the Government's view that these powers are incompatible with the ideals of a democratic society in peacetime. The exercise of these powers could result in objectionable censorship and the curbing of freedom of speech while providing a means for undue political influence over broadcasters. Section 118 of the Broadcasting and Television Act will continue to make it an offence to broadcast, or render for broadcasting, matters which are blasphemous, indecent or obscene while section 131 of the Broadcasting and Television Act will enable the Minister to exercise complete control over matters to be broadcast during an emergency. Furthermore, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has the power to direct commercial licensees to vary their programs to conform to standards determined by the Tribunal, and it also has the right to censor any matter of an objectionable nature. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 will amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Radiocommunications Act 1983 and the Telecommunications Act 1975. Provisions of this Bill will allow Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to enter into currency hedging and financial futures contracts. It will also enable Australia Post, Telecom and OTC to lease property for periods longer than 10 years without the need for approval of the Minister for Communications, providing the cost of the lease does not exceed the current prescribed contract threshold-presently $2m in the case of Telecom and $500,000 in the case of Australia Post and OTC. The Bill also provides for amendments to the Telecommunications Act arising from recommendations of the report of the Vincent Review of Matters Affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission and imposes a duty on Telecom to ensure its facilities are not used for illegal purposes. Other provisions of the Bill give effect to the recommendations of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, relating to the disclosure of pecuniary interests by members of statutory bodies. I will deal firstly with the currency and financial futures provisions of the Bill. In line with the majority of large business enterprises, there is a need for Telecom and OTC to manage their foreign exchange exposure in a prudent and effective manner. As will be appreciated, timing is critical in the placement of forward cover financial and foreign exchange contracts. In the interest of efficiency, the Government believes it is inappropriate to require the commissions to obtain approval for currency hedging or futures contracts when the main contract either is exempt from the requirement for ministerial consent or has already received it. Currency contracts are negotiated and renegotiated quickly in circumstances which make a requirement for ministerial approval impractical. This Bill will enable Telecom and OTC to respond efficiently to changing circumstances in financial markets but, at the same time, will prohibit any element of speculation by requiring dealings to be in accordance with guidelines to be determined by the Minister. Such an arrangement provides the flexibility necessary for commercial efficiency while ensuring the appropriate level of ministerial control. The Bill also repeals the requirement for ministerial approval of property leases entered into by Australia Post, Telecom and OTC for periods in excess of 10 years. Where the consideration for such leases exceeds the prescribed contract threshold value the arrangements will fall within the contract approval provisions of the legislation and adequate control will continue to be exercised through that process. As appropriate, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services would continue to exercise approvals under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. I now turn to the other provisions included in this Bill. In March 1984 the Government appointed Mr F. H. R. Vincent, QC, to review certain allegations in regard to breaches of the laws of the Commonwealth, and impropriety or official misconduct by officers of Telecom. It is now a matter of public record that Mr Vincent concluded that the perception of substantial corruption within Telecom lacked anything remotely approaching an adequate evidentiary base and that any involvement by Telecom employees in starting price betting was relatively minor. The Government's detailed response to the matters raised by Mr Vincent was presented by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) on 13 September last year and it is not my intention to repeat the Minister's comments on this occasion. However, as part of the Government's response, this Bill will implement amendments to the Telecommunications Act arising from recommendations of the Vincent report. Consistent with those recommendations, it is the Government's intention to incorporate into the Act those offences currently in the by-laws and regulations dealing with the misuse of Telecom's network, including the supply, connection and maintenance of lines, apparatus, equipment or fittings, and the alteration or modification of approved private branch exchanges and private lines. The offence provisions in the Act are also intended to cover the use of the telecommunications service for the purpose of menacing another person, the sending of false information, the harassment of a person and the sending of indecent, obscene or offensive communications. The Bill substantially increases the monetary penalties relating to these offences. In a further response to the Vincent report, the Bill provides that Telecom is under a duty, in performing its functions, to use its best endeavours to ensure that its network is not used in, or in the furtherance of, an offence under Commonwealth, State or Territory law. Other provisions in the Bill include amendments to the present disclosure of interest provisions in the Overseas Telecommunications Act, the Telecommunications Act and the Postal Services Act in order to bring the relevant sections into line with government policy on the disclosure of interests by members of statutory bodies. It also amends the Overseas Telecommunications Act to allow persons over 65 years of age to be appointed and hold office as commissioners. The age limitation will apply only to the office of Managing Director, the only full time commissioner. Finally, the Bill amends the Radiocommunications Act. It provides for an amendment to the present definition of 'radio transmission' in section 3 (1) by expanding the definition to include transmissions or emissions of electromagnetic energy of frequencies in the range from three terahertz up to 420 terahertz. This amendment provides for the licensing of recently developed systems in infra-red spectrum. Section 65 of the Radiocommunications Act is amended by the Bill to remove the need to make regulations which would otherwise be necessary to protect Royal Flying Doctor Services from interference. The amendment was considered necessary as the role of the Royal Flying Doctor Service is different in kind from the other organisations and services specified in this section of the Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(8.58) —I move: (1) That, in accordance with paragraph 8 (1) (d) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, this House refers to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for investigation and report as necessary from time to time, the proposed acquisition of automatic data processing facilities by any Commonwealth department or authority of the Commonwealth staffed under the Public Service Act 1922; notification of intention of which is to be conveyed to the committee by the Minister responsible for the department or authority intending to acquire the facilities. (2) That this resolution will continue in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the Senate or the House of Representatives in this or a subsequent Parliament. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. The passing of the motion now before the House will enable the continued operation of revised procedures introduced in June 1984 to provide a mechanism for independent scrutiny of major individual automatic data processing acquisition proposals by the Commonwealth. The motion is similar in substance to that passed by the House and which received Senate concurrence last June but it provides for the arrangements to remain in force unless and until amended or repealed by this or a subsequent parliament. The reasons underlying last year's procedural revisions remain valid and I canvass them again only briefly. Under present arrangements ADP acquisitions costing less than $2m may be approved by individual Ministers, or those costing less than $1m by departmental heads, subject of course to availability of funds. However, purchases over $2m are submitted for approval in the Budget context. Given the extent to which computers have become an essential tool in the administrative process, some relatively routine acquisitions can exceed the $2m threshold and can adequately be dealt with in this fashion. The problem is that from time to time some very large acquisition proposals come forward which are of such complexity and which raise such important related issues that they cannot be dealt with comprehensively under the severe pressures imposed by the Budget time-table. Against this background the Government proposed, and the House has agreed, that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was the most appropriate and well-placed body to review major acquisitions, and to give attention also to associated global issues which could include, for example, such matters as employment considerations, education and retraining requirements, Australian industry participation, industrial issues, cost-effectiveness, and risks associated with the introduction of advanced technology. In making this proposal, the Government did not, and does not now, ask the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to review Government decisions. The objective remains to allow Parliament, through its Committee, to form a judgment and provide advice before the decision is taken. Additional resources have been provided to the Committee to carry out this important task. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.01) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Development of 14 Chisholm Place, Melbourne, for the Australian Wheat Board. This motion relates to a proposal which was being developed for reference to the Public Works Committee but which was delayed by the 1984 election. In December 1983 the Committee reported favourably on an Australian Wheat Board proposal to redevelop its headquarters buildings at Ceres House, Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. The House of Representatives resolved that it was expedient to proceed at the estimated cost of $7.17m and construction commenced in May 1984. Later developments, particularly an increase in the estimated rate of staff growth and recommendations by the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories, culminated in the Wheat Board purchasing a property for further expansion almost adjacent to its headquarters. This further proposal, estimated to cost $3.93m, was being developed for reference to the Committee late last year. In normal circumstances it would be referred to the new Committee for consideration and report. However, construction within the existing Ceres House headquarters building has reached the point where decisions need to be made about changes to occupancies between the two proposals and, in relation to common services, to avoid slowing down or stopping various elements pending the passage of the proposal through the Public Works Committee processes. With the House due to rise on 23 May, it is not likely that the proposal could be cleared to proceed until late August or early September, and the cost of such a delay would be about $960,000. This is a substantial potential penalty for the Australian Wheat Board, which is an off-Budget funded authority set up to provide orderly marketing for the Australian wheat industry and to maximise returns to growers. The circumstances have been discussed with the Public Works Committee and advice has been received that there is no objection to exemption being sought on urgency grounds. A further point for honourable members to take into account is that the estimated cost of the work is less than the proposed revised mandatory reference limit of $6m, which has the support of the Committee, and for which enabling legislation is planned before the House rises for the recess. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning on construction can proceed. I commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.04) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, on behalf of the Opposition I support the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). I note the presence in the chamber of the shadow Minister for Primary Industry and Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt). We go along completely with what the Minister has said. In passing, I just say that there is always likely to be a confusion in relation to agricultural matters if one is not careful to specify what we are talking about. The Minister was in fact talking about the Australian Wheat Board premises at 14 Chisholm Place, Melbourne, which is known as Ceres House. I note with some interest that the blue business sheet indicates that these are premises for the Australian Meat Board, but in fact they are for the Australian Wheat Board. Mr Hunt —Wheat, not meat. Mr HODGMAN —It is wheat, not meat, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party points out. I am not being critical; I am simply making that point. What is important is that other legislation is coming through very shortly in relation to the Australian Wheat Board. I am sure that the Minister will note with some interest that that Board is one of the few that has representation from five States and not six. The plain fact is that unfortunately Tasmania is not represented on that Board. Mr Hunt —Do they grow wheat there? Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. Tasmania produces the finest biscuit flour in Australia. The wheat there is not good for bread but the flour from Tasmanian wheat is the finest biscuit flour in Australia. I do not want to pin down the Minister as he has had a very torrid day with his second introduction in four weeks of the same Bill relating to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. I simply want to say to him that in relation to this measure he has support from the Opposition. We look forward to the matter being referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works. Let me say for the record that the Opposition would not lightly go along with a proposition for exemption, but in this case the Minister has made out a case. I am sure my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party would confirm that the Opposition's view is that if we can save $900,000 of taxpayers' money we will do it. In this instance we support the motion moved by the Minister. We wish the Committee all the best in its deliberations and we note with some pleasure that $900,000 of taxpayers' money will be saved by the procedure put to the House, which the Opposition is very pleased to support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Before the debate is resumed on this Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Orders of the Day No. 7 and No. 8, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Dried Vine Fruit Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill respectively. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have said, this is a cognate debate on three Bills relating to the dried vine fruit industry-the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill. The legislation which has been introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) takes account of recent government decisions to look at future assistance arrangements for the dried vine fruits industry. The Minister in his second reading speech outlined the specific details of the various amendments. During the few minutes I have available to speak on the matter I intend to take some time to comment on the broader perspective of the Government's direction in respect of this legislation. Whilst some honourable members opposite who have spoken on this matter today have referred specifically to this industry, they have not been able to grasp the fact that the approach being taken is consistent with a broader approach being taken by the Government in respect of the primary sector and our agricultural industries. Principally, the Government's policy is directed towards deregulating the sector, tidying up massive amounts of legislation which seem to interact and correspond, and trying to minimise the time spent in this House debating what are virtually machinery Bills. Most importantly, particularly with respect to this legislation, the Government is bringing the production of our primary products closer to market forces and bringing the primary producers in closer touch with the market realities that they are in fact responding to. In my first speech in this place, I made reference to what I saw as the direction which ought to be taken by the Government in the primary sector. I commented at that time that honourable members on the other side of the House had continually tried to find one subsidy or protection scheme after another for the various components of the primary sector. I made the observation that that was not what the industries needed; they needed orderly and creative marketing and co-ordination of their productive capacities. That, in fact, is what is involved in this legislation. I also made reference to the concern of the Minister for Primary Industry and his formation of the Government's primary industry, rural and provincial affairs committee, which is playing a significant role in ensuring that the Government's legislation in this sector brings the needs of country and rural Australia completely into co-ordination and integration with the activities of the Government. Looking at this specific legislation, as I mentioned earlier, we intend particularly to bring the dried vine fruit industry more in touch with direct market forces. The principal impact of the legislation will be to increase the membership of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation by an additional two members, who will be specifically qualified in the area of dried fruit production. The principal objectives of that provision are to bring closer to the industry the realities of the increasing complexity of international marketing of dried vine fruit and to enhance the effectiveness of statutory marketing authorities. By providing for the appointment of two additional specially qualified members to the Corporation, we are trying to bring to the industry their skills in commerce, finance and marketing affairs. I believe that the Government is to be commended for that approach. The two members who will be added to the Corporation will considerably widen the Corporation's expertise. That will reflect in its performance and in the functions that it carries out. I also make the point that this is not an isolated piece of legislation directed at a particular industry. It is consistent with directions being taken across the board, and the same sort of legislation and approach has been taken in the amendments to legislation on the dairy industry that have been introduced in this House. I think it is fair to make the observation that the past philosophy of those who were in government was virtually to produce export earnings at any cost. The dried vine fruit industry has had this approach applied to it. It has led to the situation where products which have been exported in order to derive rural export dollars have been obtained from markets which have not been viable and sold at prices which have not been viable. In the end the industry has been supported by the domestic market via a levy arrangement that the previous Government established. In other words, domestic consumers of the products of this industry, in the prices that they pay, have had to bear the burden of what amounts to highly unprofitable exports. Now there is a need to bring production back within the realms of our domestic needs until we as a government can develop better opportunities for profitable export that this industry can respond to. Two areas are to be considered in respect of that approach. Firstly, there is the relationship of the levy as it exists in the industry to the export price; and, secondly, some attention needs to be given to the level of assistance which we will be continuing to provide for growers in the industry. That is another matter that has been commented on during the day by honourable members on the other side of the chamber. Again, it reflects their failure to perceive what is actually taking place. Mr Peter Fisher —How many dried fruit farmers do you have in your electorate? Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member will be able to tell us how many he has later. I will tell him about it as we go along. If we are going to talk about my experience, I suggest to the honourable member that I have lived longer in these areas and have spoken directly with these people about a more sensible arrangement on which to structure their approach and their industry than he has. I would be interested in hearing what he has to say later. It is interesting to observe how the relationship of the levy to the export price has operated in the past. The returns for each variety of dried fruit, whether it is sultanas, currants or raisins, have been equalised by imposing a levy on domestic sales and distributing the proceeds over all sales. The levy has, in practice, as the Minister observed when introducing the Bill, served to defend a particular level of domestic price by reflecting the difference between the domestic and estimated average export returns. Until recently the domestic price has been able to move roughly in line with consumer price index movements irrespective of prices on export markets. In other words, the difference between domestic and export prices has made sales on the Australian market highly vulnerable to import pressures. The present equalisation arrangements provide for levels of assistance that fluctuate widely. In recent times that has been very high. The Industries Assistance Commission, which has been asked to investigate this industry and give a report, has commented that these arrangements have enabled domestic prices to subsidise export sales, disguising the true return from exports-these are not my words, they are the words of the Industries Assistance Commission-and encouraging a greater level of dried vine fruit production than is profitable for the industry. The effect that that has had ought to be taken into account. The industry itself recognises the need to reduce the level of production to that which can be sold profitably. The Government considers that the assistance provided through equalisation payments should be more stable and should make the industry more responsive to market signals. To achieve this the Government has decided to reduce progressively the maximum proportion of equalisation payments to average export returns. I mentioned earlier that we also need to look at the general level of assistance to the industry that comes about as a result of these changes. I think that is important because the new arrangements are expected to provide roughly the same amount of assistance on average as at present. In other words, the producers are not suddenly being expected to face the realities of the market overnight; we are continuing the level of assistance while adjustments take place in the industry. However, with the system being based on returns from exports only rather than returns from all sales, underwriting will be more sensitive to the sharp falls in world market prices and will be more effective in providing the protection intended. As an example, I will make a comparison of the new and the current systems and apply them to the data that has been made available in respect of production in 1982. Under the current arrangements, $16.38 per tonne was paid via the levy assistance. Had the new arrangements been in operation, $61 per tonne would have been payable. The effect of this assistance to the industry is to maintain current levels, but it is directed specifically to those producing for the export market. In conclusion, the legislation in respect of the dried vine fruits industry is a classic example of the problem that the Government inherited after years and years of establishing schemes for subsidies and protection. Mr Peter Fisher —It has been highly successful. Mr O'KEEFE —It is a classic example. I know the farmers in this area. I will be interested to hear the comments which the honourable member for Mallee has to make about them. They are not Collins Street farmers. They are very hard-working and they have lived in the area for years. Some of them are very close to rural poverty. They are blockies with high debts. They have been completely exposed to fluctuations, such as growing conditions that change from one year to another, market fluctuations and interest rate fluctuations. Let me talk about that for a moment. I am sure that there is a significant difference in the operation of their industry under the current economic policies than under those which we inherited. One asks: How did the situation develop in this way? It has developed over years. Our predecessors had no overall strategy, just a piecemeal approach. Now these people in the industry have laid down a consistent approach that spreads across the whole primary industry sector. The Government is to be commended for taking the bit between the teeth, taking decisions and introducing a direction that those on the other side of the House simply have not been capable of taking. In summing up, I would just say that these measures will encourage ongoing adjustment within the industry to place viable producers on a stronger footing in the long term. Numerous producers of dried vine fruits earn very low incomes from their farms for reasons such as inadequate farm areas or excessive debt structures. Basically they have no prospects of becoming economically viable. It is our intention to assist those growers as they move out of the industry in order for production to achieve levels that are economically viable. In saying that, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that the decisions of the Government follow on from the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. We asked the Commission to inquire into the assistance needs of the industry because world market prices had fallen sharply. Under pressure from a major surplus of fruit, the industry was experiencing considerable financial difficulties. We have come to grips with the hard questions. I believe the Minister is to be commended for the steps that he is taking. With pleasure I commend the Bills to the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.23) —The House is currently considering cognately the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill, the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill. I was interested in the comments made by the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) who was the first Labor back bencher to speak on these measures. A number of my colleagues in the Liberal and National parties have already spoken. At any rate, I welcome the honourable member's interest in this subject and his comment that he knows many of these hard-working blocky irrigators and operators in this vital primary industry. I wonder just how well he knows them and how much he really believes this package will help those people. I am not going to ask him to believe me in terms of answering that charge. I am going to ask him to believe the comments of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, ADFA, which is an independent, non-partisan organisation, as to what will be the consequences of this package. I ask the honourable member for Burke to consider what ADFA had to say about the package which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has brought in here-not the comments of members of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party, but those of a vital industry organisation which has researched this subject in a great deal of detail, as one would expect, and has capably carried the burden of the work in respect of this legislation in the industry's very difficult months recently. ADFA contends that in the main there will be eight key consequences resulting from the adoption of this legislation. Firstly, the rejection of a market entitlement scheme prevents the formulation of an industry production target and fails to provide the clear market signals needed by growers, which is in direct answer to what the honourable member for Burke has said here tonight. Secondly, there will be greater instability in returns to growers in future years due to equalisation levy ceilings. These ceilings will force Australian prices for DVF to fluctuate widely. Thirdly, the low prices for any period on the Australian market would be the base for future prices. Returns to growers lost from the Australian market in any period would not be recovered but would be compounded forward. Fourthly, the peaks demonstrated by the Government's equalisation levy formula would be unobtainable because of market pressures. For example, the Government formula when applied to past seasons shows that a price increase of up to 37 per cent should theoretically have been applied to the Australian market. However, the market would reject any price increase of that magnitude-of course it would-and if forced upon buyers would result in dramatic losses in sales and an increased export dependence for the industry. Fifthly, periods of low Australian prices could be forced on the industry and lead to dramatically reduced returns to growers because of pressures from buyers and the availability of imported fruit. Sixthly, there is no increased protection from imports. While an import duty of $200 per tonne is retained, its real value is being rapidly eroded by inflation. Seventhly, the ADFA believes that the $5m adjustment money is inadequate to grapple with the adjustment of the industry needed. For example, even if the sum were fully expended on vine pull compensation less than 5,000 tonnes of production would be likely to be removed from the industry. Finally, the ADFA-not the National Party, not the Liberal Party-believes that there must be considerable doubt as to whether the $5m funding for adjustment will in fact be achieved. For the first time for a rural adjustment program, contributions will be required from the States. It is known that Victoria, the State with the greatest DVF adjustment need, may be reluctant to support the scheme under the terms announced by the Commonwealth. Significantly, there appears to have been little, if any, consultation with the States prior to the announcement, and no commitment of any State funds to date. I ask the House, the honourable member for Burke and others to consider that they are the findings of the ADFA in respect of this legislative package before the House. Indeed, it is a tragedy that there has been this great lack of consultation with all sections of the industry by the Minister for Primary Industry. I accept that he is a busy man; nevertheless, so important is this industry and so vital is the legislative package that he has brought to the House on this occasion that he should have made the effort to make an extensive visit along the Murray River and to other key parts of the industry, especially into the Sunraysia in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), to my electorate of Farrer and also to the South Australian electorates in which we find so many of these people in absolutely desperate circumstances. Whilst I do not in any way blame the Minister for those desperate circumstances, he does have responsibility to move capably to adjust the situation. Instead, he has presented a package which, as I said, the Australian Dried Fruits Association has rejected. I support the amendment so capably moved by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry and Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). In fact, I venture to suggest that perhaps the amendment could have gone even further because what we are asking for is time for this industry to adjust to the circumstances which are now prevailing and to the realities of the world market. It is interesting to hear the honourable member for Burke say that this is all part of Labor's consistent package to deregulate primary industries and inject market reality into every primary industry without qualification. Had the honourable member for Burke continued on that line I would have offered him membership of the modest members society and certainly he would have been welcomed into the club of economic dries. Indeed, I think in one sense the honourable member was slightly accurate but he and this Government have stopped short with their half-hearted approach to deregulation. On the one hand they advocate the deregulation of a particular industry in isolation; on the other hand, that industry then has to survive against a totally regulated labour market, against a totally structured industrial award system which has little flexibility an makes little allowance for penalty rules. It is impossible for the industry to survive in such circumstances. That is why I reject the thrust of the comment by the honourable member for Burke. He and, indeed, the Minister and the Government are forcing half-hearted, half-baked deregulation packages on sections of industry, including the dairy industry and, in terms of this legislation, the dried fruits industry, without addressing the underlying major problem area of the inflexible labour market in this country. In January, shortly after my election as the member for Farrer, in conjunction with the honourable member for Mallee and State colleagues in the Sunraysia area, I attended a number of meetings and deputations with many organisations in that area who expressed their concern about the Industries Assistance Commission report. Perhaps I should tell the House what happened to a copy of the IAC report on one occasion. It was ceremoniously buried in a coffin in Deakin Avenue, the main street of Mildura. Mr Hunt —It has been resurrected. Mr TIM FISCHER —As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has pointed out, it has been resurrected in this legislation. Worse still, the thrust of all that is contained in this package will mean a return of this industry to the IAC at a later stage this decade. That is a bitter and costly pill for the dried fruits industry. As the honourable member for Mallee said earlier today, it is one that the dried fruits industry can ill afford. So many other industries which have to go before the IAC are reaching a stage where they are finding it very difficult to mount a substantive case because of the costs involved. This is especially so if they are not one of the major primary industries but are one of the smaller and more localised regional primary industries. I put it to the House that the Minister has not realised the true impact of his legislation. I put it to the House that the Minister has not appreciated the massive hardship being faced by many irrigators on both sides of the State borders-in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, along the Murray River, and elsewhere in Australia-where the circumstances of farmers are ones of poverty, as the honourable member for Burke correctly suggested. Indeed, they suffer very real poverty levels, despite the many hours of work they put in for very little return. Unfortunately, on the face of it the legislation seeks to address this problem area. However, in reality it fails to address the problem in terms that would be acceptable and would solve the real problems associated with the dried fruits industry. I share the reservations of my colleagues in relation to the legislation. I support strongly the amendment moved by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party. There has to be an appreciation of the contribution of just under $200m each year which is made by the dried fruits industry. It is a decentralised industry which, to some extent, came about as a result of the post-World War II land settlement programs. As such, perhaps it deserves a greater measure of responsibility and obligation than do most other industries in terms of providing sufficient time for adjustment. I am a realist. As I said before, I am a qualified free trader. I accept that there has to be change, that there has to be rationalisation. Equally, I submit to the Minister and to the House that there has to be time to allow this to happen without casting hundreds upon hundreds of dried fruit operators out into the cold without further adding to their hardship. In fact, the package before the House will do just that. Many of the blocks which were developed on the Victorian side after the Second World War in particular were of an uneconomic size. It is taking time and a process of adjustment is occurring. It is very sad that the odd boom that did occur, especially at the start of this decade, was not taken as a wonderful opportunity for the governments of those days, State and Federal, to seek to bring about a measure of adjustment when there was a margin to ease that adjustment in. Instead the adjustment comes at a very harsh time for the industry. It is always fashionable to knock a primary industry when it is on its knees. The Australian Dried Fruits Association and other organisations with which both I and the honourable member for Mallee have been associated on this matter have put in an enormous amount of very capable work in respect of this legislation. I reiterate that they see it as being a package which will not provide what the Minister for Primary Industry sets out as objectives in terms of the important and decentralised dried fruits industry. I ask the Minister utilising the time delay with passage of the legislation through the Senate to give the legislation further consideration and to support the amendment brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. As I said at the outset, deregulation has a lot of intrinsic merit but cannot be considered in isolation. This package is in a sense an attempt at speedy deregulation in one industry, in one part of the equation without deregulating the labour market and without providing relief in other areas, such as the tax burden and the record high fuel prices which prevail in this country and which impact so heavily on my electors in Farrer and indeed on all country electorates. The lack of sympathy shown by this Government to the farm cost situation in general is causing very real concern throughout rural Australia and it should be looked at again. If the matter is not considered before, at least we hope that in the course of the taxation summit sympathetic consideration will be given to farm costs so that there might be some relief through realistic changes to the tax structure, especially the tax structure on fuel, which is biting so hard in country areas. I hold many reservations in relation to the legislative package before the House. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I hope very careful consideration will be given to the true impact of this package because it is a devastating package which will do a great deal of damage to a very important decentralised industry in this country. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.39) —in reply-I would like to sum up the debate and again thank the honourable members who have participated in it. Many honourable members have pointed out, with respect to the tale of this industry, that there are some people in desperate economic circumstances. The price of entry to this industry is not very high. A lot of people were sucked in by the high prices in 1980 and 1981 and were financed into the industry at terms that were not able to be met in terms of the industry's economic future over a longer period. In other words, it was a bit like the sugar industry; there was a very big increase in prices for a year or two and a lot of people took decisions on the basis of that rather than on the longer term prospects for the industry. The Opposition has relied pretty much on the telex from the Australian Dried Fruits Association in reaction to the Government's announced plans and, of course, I too have received that information. The National Party of Australia tonight in this House is again playing the old trick of trying to do what the industry wants it to do regardless of the industry's longer term needs or of any general consideration of government policy. I will pick up some of the points that were made during the debate. The legislation is the result of pretty widespread consultation. It follows an Industries Assistance Commission report and industry consultation. There have been extensive discussions at meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council and I have met many people from the industry in my office, as well as having visited the Victorian and New South Wales areas of the industry two or three times since I have been Minister. Another point concerned increased membership of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. I say simply that this is in line with the Government's policy of making statutory marketing authorities more commercially effective. The Opposition must realise that this industry comprises very few organisations. It is a very tightly run industry. I think that there is a little too much of hat swapping between the ADFA, the packers and the Corporation. In other words, it will not hurt the Corporation to have some additional members who will perhaps bring new insights to the industry, because the group of people from which one can select members of this Corporation is quite limited. The industry is quite regionally concentrated. There is only a handful of packers. It was the belief of the industry, and certainly of some members of the Corporation, that having two people with additional marketing expertise would enhance the thinking on the Corporation's board. The industry has been requesting that there be a market entitlement scheme. We certainly analysed that proposal in great depth. At the same time, although that was the Association's policy it has certainly been brought to my attention since the Government made this announcement that many people are very happy that we did not take the decision with respect to an entitlement scheme. Quite frankly, the indications were that there would be available a 100,000-tonne grape surplus for crushing into wine. If we inserted a two-pool entitlement scheme, the returns from the export market-if that is the price that one sets for the second part of the two-pool scheme-would be about $100 a tonne fresh rate versus a minimum South Australian price of $185 a tonne. In other words, we might have kept up the end of the dried vine fruits industry, but those people introducing multi-purpose grapes-whether they are diverting them into wine, dried fruit or table grapes-would have received less revenue if an entitlement scheme had been put in place. While some reduction in production is desirable, there is no intention of defining specific production targets; rather, the industry should have clearer market signals so that producers are better informed. This is being achieved through changes to the equalisation arrangements. I do not believe it is responsible government policy to encourage people to invest in an industry unless one is prepared to continue to subsidise the industry. There is no sense in encouraging people into an industry to do their money, on the basis of industry arrangements that represent a false market picture for the person investing his money. The equalisation arrangements are to provide an equalised return for all fruit, both domestic and export, which by 1990 will be no higher than 15 per cent above the average export return. The equalisation scheme does not allow the defence of domestic price movements in line with the consumer price index, irrespective of market circumstances. There has been quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the proposed amended equalisation arrangements. That confusion is shared by the ADFA and the Opposition. While the arrangements will enable clearer market signals to be provided to producers, the arrangements will continue to provide for a considerable consumer transfer, even at the stage at which the equalised returns over all fruit are no more than 15 per cent above the average export return. The following example illustrates the amount by which the equalisation arrangement could enable domestic prices to be above average export prices at the 15 per cent level. It is very difficult to cite numbers and expect people to understand them, but at least the example will be in Hansard and people can read it at their leisure and do the sums. If we assume that the Australian production is 65,000 tonnes and of that amount 45,000 tonnes are exported and 20,000 tonnes are sold on the domestic market, which is similar to the expected situation for the 1985 season, and if we also assume that the average export return is $1,000 per tonne-and thus at the 15 per cent level the maximum equalised return would be $1,150 per tonne-this would enable a domestic price of $1,488 per tonne, which is almost 50 per cent above the average export price. The working is as follows: The overall equalised return of $1,150 per tonne multiplied by the total production of 65,000 tonnes gives an overall return of $74,750,000. Deduct the return from exports of 45,000 tonnes multiplied by $1,000 per tonne, or $45m, and it leaves a return from domestic sales of $29,750,000. Divide the domestic return of $29,750,000 by the number of tonnes sold on the domestic market-that is, 20,000 tonnes-and it gives $1,488 per tonne which, as I said, is nearly 50 per cent higher. The formula, even at the 15 per cent level, allows for that level of protection to be in the present arrangements. Everyone is assuming that it is only a flat 15 per cent. With a higher proportion of fruit being exported, the domestic price allowed by the arithmetic is higher and the converse applies. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) raised the question of the industry not being protected by indexation-that is, that there is no consumer price index element in the formula-and pointed out that the industry has to compete in a situation in which the prices for inputs, including labour, is indexed. I guess that argument has a lot of currency in the bush at present, but by and large farmers are business people and business incomes are not indexed. I am quite happy to concede the fact that labour markets do not clear because prices for labour never move downwards, but I also point out that, while we have a mixed economy and while we have business people, governments in our sort of society do not index business incomes. If we were in the business of indexing business incomes, it would follow eventually that government would determine what was produced and how it was produced. That is one of the simple facts of the sort of society we live in. Ours is a mixed economy. The Australian Labor Party has no desire to so totally regulate primary industries in which people are investing their money. To pick up some of the other points made by the honourable member for Farrer, I sympathise with the points he made about the tariff level. It has been at about $200 per tonne for a considerable time. But at least we can now recognise that the Greek fruit has been effectively countervailed and the United States fruit which was coming in has been effectively kept out by devaluation. So some of that pressure has been removed from the industry. The Opposition proposes to stop at the third stage of phasing in in 1988, with some talk of an Industries Assistance Commission review then. The Opposition has assumed that the domestic price would, in theory, be that which arithmetically results from having an equalised price that is 15 per cent above the export price. I think I have already dealt with that matter. However, at times when world prices are very high, it would be unrealistic to expect the domestic returns to be set at a level which reflects an equalised return that is 15 per cent above the export price. At times when the world price is particularly low there is a constraint on the domestic price which can be supported by the equalisation arrangements but there is no constraint on the domestic price set by market forces. When world prices are very low the $200 per tonne duty in place still provides relatively higher protection as it is set in terms of a specific rate. In calendar year 1984 the average value of duty for imports was $1,104 per tonne, so the ad valorem equivalent of the $200 duty was 18 per cent. Growers are receiving considerable protection from large falls in export prices for sultanas through the revised underwriting provisions which will now be more sensitive to price changes. I do not think it is appropriate to introduce a system which is subject to review after two or three years. It would create uncertainty and inhibit the adjustment which is needed to put those who are remaining in the industry on a stronger footing. It is not realistic for non-viable producers to expect a guarantee that they will stay in the industry regardless of changes in market circumstances. Some producers must need to adjust out of the industry. The new equalisation arrangements in place, while continuing to provide considerable assistance, will help get through clearer market signals to assist in the decision-making process. Assistance for adjustment is provided through the rural adjustment scheme and dried vine fruit growers will be helped by the provision of this additional $5m. Underwriting is not to be applied to currants and raisins. Their production is much lower and the IAC believes that underwriting is not needed at this time. Quite frankly, last year's volumes were so low that no equalisation was applied. In the 1985 season production levels are estimated at 66,000 tonnes of sultanas, 5,000 tonnes of currants and 1,860 tonnes of raisins, so at present the volumes of currants and raisins do not justify underwriting. I conclude by dealing with comments by the honourable member for Farrer on the $5m adjustment package. I can assure him that there has been a lot of consultation with the States and officials on this matter. The IAC suggested that if the $5m was used entirely for a vine pool scheme a payment of about $2,500 per hectare or about $24,200 for an average size block could be made, reducing production by about 10,000 tonnes. Most of the discussions took place last December with State government rural finance officers. There was a clear indication that adjustment assistance additional to the RAS was needed and that, especially for Victoria, a vine pool appeared to be appropriate. The New South Wales Government did not see it as clearly as that. It does not have quite the problems that are faced in Victoria. By and large there was agreement that existing funds in RAS Part A would be available. In an earlier debate today I pointed out that the States have accumulated a lot of money under the rural adjustment scheme since 1977. One estimate by the Commonwealth-I cannot verify it exactly here-is that the Victorian Government has accumulated something like $100m in funds as a result of its operations of the scheme. Mr Hunt —Is that in a trust fund? Mr KERIN —I do not know. On 26 April this year, once the scheme had been announced, I wrote to my ministerial counter parts in the States and asked whether the State governments wished to participate in the scheme. Thought through responses are still awaited but there is no indication that the States are not prepared to participate and the discussions I have had also privately with officials from the departments indicate that we will develop this package. To get 10,000 tonnes out with $5m will certainly help some of the people who are in the most distressed state in this industry at present. 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 17 April, 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 17 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.56) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2, lines 20 and 21, omit paragraphs 3 (d) and 3 (e). (2) Clause 2, page 2, lines 27 and 28, omit paragraphs 4 (d) and 4 (e). (3) Clause 2, page 2, lines 34 and 35, omit paragraphs 5 (d) and 5 (e). Under clause 2 of the Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is empowered to set a limit to equalisation payments for particular seasons. The Bill reduces the maximum proportion of equalisation payments to average export returns to 15 per cent for each of the three dried vine fruit varieties for the season starting on 1 January 1990. I repeat something I said this morning about this industry, because there is a perception that it is one of those small, unimportant industries. The industry involves 4,000 growers and their families, and employs 17,000 people. The product prices for dried vine fruits over the years have been broadly in line with the Consumer Price Index, although there is a consumer transfer, as the Minister has suggested. The equalisation payments have been funded by a levy on the growers. The industry has earned export income of between $50m and $80m per annum, and the payout in 1983-84 was of the order of $1.3m. I gather that there will be no net payments in 1984-85. It is a significant industry in terms of labour utilisation. While the Opposition does not totally oppose the decision to limit the difference between the rate of equalisation payments and the average export income, to 27.8 per cent for currants, 23.6 per cent for sultanas and 47.2 per cent for raisins for the season commencing 1 January 1988-our bicentennial year-that decision will apply to the coming three-year period. We seek an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry to report on what should be done in the light of changed circumstances from 1 January 1989 and the years following. The reasons why we are not prepared to go along with a five-year recommendation reducing the level of assistance to 15 per cent are the uncertainty of world market conditions and the uncertainty of currency movements. We believe it is essential for the IAC to review further the economic situation facing the dried fruits industry in 1988 and to report on what measures should be taken to help strengthen this industry further to meet competition from such countries as Greece, Turkey and the United States of America, where there is a very high element of subsidisation. There is consumer transfer, but we have a highly regulated society, particularly on the wages front. I think it is very crude and very difficult to talk in terms of free market forces when we compare the prices that apply on a corrupted world market with what the prices in this country might be or should be. If we followed this philosophy right through with all our industries we would reach a situation where we would successfully export jobs in practically every sphere and signal to the European Economic Community and the United States that we are going to desert one industry after another and let them take over from where we left off. I think it is about time we started to wake up. I think we are being managed by people who perhaps have good economic theories but who do not take much account of the longer term requirements for productive capacity and the ability of an industry and a country to earn export income to try to repay the ever-growing national debt and the interest flowing from that. In 1988 it will be interesting to see what the government of the day-whatever government that may be-is prepared to do in respect of freeing up the wages system. It will also be interesting to see how far the government of the day is prepared to go in reducing the level of tariff protection on the secondary industries in this country. I have been concerned that despite a substantial reduction in the level of effective assistance to agricultural industries, from 28 per cent to 8 per cent in the last 12 years, there has been a fall in the level of assistance to secondary industries from 36 per cent to only 25 per cent. Therefore, the effective assistance to agricultural industries is falling twice as fast as it is for manufacturing industries. Why is that? It is happening because no government seems to be prepared to put wholesale masses of people in cities out of work. However, out in the country where the numbers are not great the Government can experiment with its economic theories because on polling day it knows that those people might not make a great deal of difference to the outcome of an election campaign. There is no way that the farmers of this nation can continue to have their levels of assistance and protection removed at such a rate while the level of assistance for secondary industries remains as high as it does for secondary industries and whilever we have a rigid institutionalised wages fixation system that is bloating the wage and on-wage structure in this country. There is no way that this can continue to happen. I do not think it is on in social terms; I do not think it is right in economic terms in the long term. I think we need to get our priorities right in a country that has come to rely so much on agriculture. The city of Mildura has been built on the dried fruits industry. It has been built on the hard work and sweat of small farmers who have worked around the clock and given more than people who work for wages are prepared to give. The industry is highly dependent upon employed labour. It provides a lot of jobs for a lot of people who cannot get work in the bigger cities. I just wonder where we are taking this country to by adopting these attitudes. All right, one can look five years ahead. But who is to know whether the government of the day in five years time is going to have the courage to take decisions that are necessary to equate with the decision which is inherent in this proposal for the dried fruits industry? The wages regime has an enormous bearing on the welfare of the dried fruits industry which is labour intensive. In fairness, no one in this Parliament, no one in this nation and no one who is advising governments either in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics or elsewhere, should endeavour to single out the dried fruits industry or any other industry to be punished with medicine which is not being dealt out, or which any government is not prepared to deal out, to other sectors of the Australian community. The Opposition puts this amendment to the House in good faith because it does not run away from the basic principle that the Government has adopted. It follows the recommendations of the IAC to 1988. All we do is plead with the Minister and the Government, just as we will plead with the Australian Democrats and with Senator Harradine, to support what we are trying to do. We are trying to give them another chance so we can see whether the Victorian and New South Wales governments will put up $1 for every $2 that the Commonwealth has offered to pull the vines out roots and all in Sunraysia. Mr Milton —You are agrarian socialists. Mr HUNT —We are not agrarian socialists. We are prepared to stand on our own provided Government members and their mates are prepared to stand on their own. We will do so and we will do it well. Government members should not utter a word of protest if they are not prepared to deregulate wages, and they would not dare. They would not even get pre-selection. It is as simple as that. The Government has an opportunity to show whether it has one ounce of concern, one ounce of humanity for hard-working people and their families-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.02) —I second this amendment and I remind the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that we are not talking about an inefficient industry. We are talking about probably the most efficient dried fruit industry in the world; we are talking about a region in Australia that has attempted to diversify to the best of its capacity. The Sunraysia region in my electorate probably supplies to Australian markets as diverse as Darwin, Brisbane and Sydney every day the greatest range of primary products necessary for human consumption. I mention that because this amendment is an attempt to hold to at least 25 per cent the levy that is proportionable to equalised returns and average export returns so as better to meet the needs of this industry. I would sooner have a different amendment. I do not believe that the industry can stand continual Industries Assistance Commission reports, but I do believe the 25 per cent figure is adequate and that that would provide realistic support in the times when it is most required-that is, during the violent down-turns experienced on the export market. As I have already explained this afternoon, 25 per cent will not provide excessive assistance, if any, in years of better returns when high prices indicated by the formula would not and could not be achieved on the Australian market. I take exception to the Minister's views that the dried vine fruit industry-in fact, any primary industry-does not have the responsibility to index its returns on the domestic market to the best that it can possibly obtain. In fact, the Minister has suggested tonight that some $1,400 is an adequate return on the Australian domestic market for dried vine fruit. In 1980 the return for dried vine fruit on the Australian market was $2,360. What the Minister is suggesting is a drop of almost 50 per cent in domestic returns to Australian vine fruit growers. I ask him whether he is prepared to go out into the community and tell Australian wage and salary earners that they should accept a drop of 50 per cent in their indexed wages and salaries. I am sure he is not. I believe that the Australian Dried Fruits Association has acted responsibly and successfully in setting domestic prices on the Australian market. This can best be gauged by the fact that over the last few years the Association has increased domestic returns by some 5 per cent annually, indicating that consumers in this country are prepared to pay the prices it is setting. While the boom years brought about an entree into the Australian dried fruit industry that in some cases proved unsuccessful, it also provided for the largest percentage of dried fruit producers the first opportunity since the establishment of the Australian dried fruit industry throughout so many of our regional communities to upgrade their domestic living conditions at least to some standard and quality that is available to other Australians. I believe that the Minister should be condemned for believing that the booms in Australian agricultural prices should not be as acceptable to the Australian community as the down periods. I believe that clause of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalisation Levy Amendment Bill indicates a very short-sighted approach by the Government and does not take into consideration the long term nature of vine plantings and particularly the highly variable nature of production and returns. The high variance in production and returns indicates that 15 per cent assistance does not provide sufficient support in the extreme or low income years, while the 15 per cent built into the Government's proposals is not required in years such as the boom years of the 1980s that the Minister mentioned. The greatest shortcoming is that the average assistance given to the dried fruit industry was reported by the IAC as being 15 per cent over the past 11 years. The Australian Dried Fruits Association believes that this long term average of 15 per cent is therefore an appropriate benchmark against which the industry should have been judged and not the extreme depressed year of 1984 that we have just passed through. I believe that the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) attempted to perpetuate the fallacy that is put forward in this place so often by members of the Australian Labor Party that this industry receives or other rural industries receive one subsidy after another. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) made the same interjection just moments ago. I remind the Committee that the Australian dried fruit industry is expected to receive, through subsidisation by taxpayers in this country, $1.3m-$1.3m going to 17,000 people dependent on the Australian dried fruit industry. However, people on the other side of the chamber are prepared to support a $14m subsidy on the manufacture of headers in a western Melbourne suburb that supports the jobs of only 260 people. There is absolutely no equity in that and I believe that anyone who believes that the sorts of measures that we are suggesting tonight are an excessive subsidy should look again at what he is proposing. I cannot agree with the Australian Labor Party view that rural products should be purchased in this country at Third World prices. This had been said tonight by the honourable member for Burke and it has been indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry. I also briefly point to some of the demographic changes that have taken place in the dried fruit industry regions over the last few years, where so many of the households today are characterised by younger age structures, by larger household sizes and by high concentrations of overseas born persons of non-English speaking origins. In my region of Sunraysia, 24 per cent of growers have lived on their present properties for five years or less; 100 per cent of Turkish born growers have lived on their properties for five years or less; 35 per cent of Italian born growers and 44 per cent of Australian born growers have lived on their farms for less than 11 years. In this Bill the Minister has accepted an IAC report that failed to take into account highly relevant considerations and I wish to emphasise them again in closing. The IAC did not project any results of its recommendations on the incomes of producers or the large regional communities they support. It did not target any optimum production levels for this industry. It did not account for the social welfare effects of these recommendations and it did not account for the increased unemployment in areas that already have rates double the national average. I reject this Bill. I believe that the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition will go a long way towards meeting the needs of the industry. In closing, I mention the tremendous trauma and difficulties that the officials of the Australian Dried Fruits Association have faced in bearing the burden of this industry's problems over the last 18 months. I believe that they have done an outstanding job in endeavouring to consult with a government that has not been prepared to consult to the fullest. I believe that the market entitlement scheme they proposed would have met the needs of the industry, would have produced the market signals for growers and would have brought about the type of required adjustment, without the harmful effects we are going to see with the implementation of this equalisation levy. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.16) —I support the amendment and the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) on this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the limit at which equalisation payments will be set and the wisdom of ultimately reducing, as the Government proposes to do, those equalisation payments to 15 per cent. I make the point, principally in response to the interjections that have been heard this evening and not so specifically to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), that this is not an industry that is seeking subsidised support. It is an industry that is quite able by world standards to stand on its own feet. It is an industry which, as I said this morning, leads the world in terms of the mechanisation it has applied to an otherwise labour intensive industry. It is an industry that happens to export two-thirds of its product overseas and to have captured a greater proportion of its local consumer market than has any other dried fruit industry in the world. The amendment with which we are dealing is effectively designed to iron out the fluctuations in markets which the Opposition fears will occur catastrophically if we allow the legislation to pass. I wish briefly to make a point or two that I was unable to make this morning but which I think fit appropriately into debate on an amendment to iron out fluctuating returns to growers, particularly export returns. I am very conscious that every year this industry generates $50m to $80m in export income to Australia. In the present circumstances, incredibly, there is not a debilitating surplus of dried vine fruit in Australia. Six months ago there was such a surplus; today there is not. That sort of movement is characteristic of this industry. In fact, as the Minister said, the devaluation of our dollar has kept out United States fruit, and countervailing duties have effectively eliminated the problem being felt by the industry from unfair competition from Greek fruit. As is often the case with primary production in Australia, and particularly with horticultural production, success or failure of an individual industry can well depend on whether or not there has been a tragedy in a producing area somewhere else in the world. It seems that our survival often depends on disasters elsewhere. In talking about fluctuating incomes and fluctuating export incomes, it struck me that an area that ought to be addressed by the Government-the Committee stage gives me an opportunity to bring it to the Minister's attention-is the provision of some of our overseas food aid in the form of dried fruit. I suggest to the Minister that it could well be worth while directing some of the money spent in food aid to providing a dried fruit package. I make that point because dried vine fruit provides a major concentrated food source. It is a food source that lends itself to transportation. It is a food source that has a long life without the need for any effective refrigeration. A small step the Government could take to iron out fluctuations in export incomes, and to iron out those surpluses sometimes faced by Australian producers through no fault of their own, would be to take some of the Australian surplus production and redirect it to needy parts of the world in the form of food aid. I bring that to the attention of the Minister tonight and seek some comment from him. It seems to me that this product lends itself to that form of overseas aid and it would not need large proportions of it to iron out the fluctuations of which we are so fearful. Furthermore, this would not require any particular allocation of Treasury funds since the money is already being spent in one form of aid or another. I conclude by making one ironic observation, and that is that in many instances the very people who are now growing dried vine fruit have themselves come from what were almost Third World countries. In fact, until the recent boom experienced in the dried vine fruit industry they were living, as the honourable member for Mallee indicated, in conditions that were little better than Third World conditions. There is a touch of irony in the reality that the provision of food aid in this form may well be going to people who desperately need it and coming from people who once lived in similar circumstances. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.22) —On behalf of the Government I oppose the amendments moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I will deal with the amendments specifically and then broaden my comments. The amendments would considerably dampen market signals by going only to the third stage of the phasing and not to the fifth stage where a 15 per cent maximum applies. This would only reduce the incentive for much needed adjustment. It fails to recognise the consumer transfer, which still is enabled at the 15 per cent level. I have already given an arithmetical example, which was a real world arithmetical example, on the domestic price which is enabled by the equalisation. That can give an effective level of about 48 or 50 per cent. A review of the arrangements after a few years would create uncertainty and this again would inhibit the adjustment needed. Frankly, the industry needs another Industries Assistance Commission inquiry like it needs a hole in the head. The IAC inquiry was set in being by this Government and Senator Button and I specified the terms of reference to try to deal with the problems we saw there. We wanted the IAC to take into account regional effects, look at alternative crops and look at whether the measures of social support for this industry were adequate. The Government was disappointed with the sorts of answers that came back on those points. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) seemed to imply that I did not think booms were acceptable. I think that booms are very acceptable in primary industries; they are part of the business. It is what primary industry and private business are all about. Participation in industry means returns vary widely through the years. Some people do very well, some people are unlucky, some people do not do very well. The ups and downs and oscillations in performance of the industry throughout this time is the reason why we have the tax averaging provisions, and why investment in the industry is characterised by having very long planning horizons. We do not want to see a boom having the effect of encouraging people into an industry. That effect is facilitated by arrangements that do not enable people to see what the true market signals are. I agree with the Opposition that there is not excessive protection for this industry. It is true that a calculation will show that the consumer subsidy is high, as in the dairy and sugar industries, against the totally corrupted international price. The honourable member for Gwydir raised some larger issues. What the Government is proposing still provides considerable assistance for the industry. He said that the industry should have some indexation of its returns. I point out that the problem of indexation and cost of production formulas in primary industry is that productivity increases cannot be satisfactorily accommodated. Parliaments have been through this debate endlessly. In this industry it is pretty well conceded that one can get a productivity increase of virtually 100 per cent. If one gets better root stocks into the industry, better trellising and some vineyard rehabilitation there is a big potential for productivity increase. Given that there are vineyards in this industry which are degraded, I think that it is very much in the interests of the industry that some people are helped out of it. That is why we have gone for the vine pull scheme. We are providing underwriting. It is a more generous underwriting than that of the previous system. An entitlement scheme certainly would have given the market signals to the dried vine fruit industry, but the trouble with entitlements, as I have already said, is that what we have, particularly in the Sunraysia and the Riverland, is a grape industry. It is not just a dried vine fruit industry. No matter how much the industry cherishes an entitlement scheme, I am afraid that I am of the opinion that it would have reduced revenue. The inquiries we have instigated-I shall be able at some stage to release the result of the McKay inquiry-show the inter-relationship of the grape growing areas rather than three distinct industries and that particularly applies to multi-purpose grapes. Some of the larger matters raised by the honourable member for Gwydir have a lot of validity, but I point out that, due to various economic mechanisms, our country has about 600,000 people out of work. Part of that is due to the fact that the international trade scene is increasingly corrupted, and we have wage fixing systems that never move downwards-if one applies really harsh economics to it. But there is also a need with indexation of wages and salaries, to provide effective consumer demand, otherwise primary producers do not sell their products. I share a prejudice, which the economic rationalists of this town are trying to drive out of me, that there are very few things we cannot get cheaper from abroad and that theories of comparative advantage have just about gone out the door with the sorts of policies that the European Economic Community is putting in place; so at some stage we have to decide on priorities. The trouble is that if we continue with policies of subsidy by tariff protection, as are applied to our secondary industries, consumer transfer or direct subsidy, we will eventually come up against the fact that we are engaging in competitive subsidisation with the rest of the world. Frankly, we do not have the tax or the population base. This is something which parliaments and governments will have to grapple with more. It is not possible to take industries one by one and ignore the broader scene. I welcome the fact that the honourable member for Gwydir has raised some of these points because what applies to any one industry, in proposing measures for it, should have, I believe, some general applicability in government policies across the board. The only way we can progress is to get some consistency in our policy making. That is what the Government is trying to do. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Hunt's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Beale, J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Drummond, P. H. Slipper, P. N.Edwards, Harry Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Sullivan, K. J.Fischer, Tim Tuckey, C. W.Fisher, Peter Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P.Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, 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.Hollis, C. 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. Hodges, J. C. Mildren, J. B.Goodluck, B. J. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.38) —For some time now this nation and indeed this Parliament have been concerned with certain aspects of social security legislation, namely, the assets test. I am very pleased that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is in the House at the moment as I wish to direct my remarks to him not so much in regard to the assets test but rather in regard to whether or not he has pursued with the same missionary zeal that he has displayed towards that hopelessly unjust assets test, the social security fraud, conceded by his predecessor to be in the region of $300m. For all we know the amount could be well above that $300m. Just what new measures has this Minister undertaken since assuming his portfolio several months ago? It is a matter of severe regret that his entire energies and those of his Department have been directed towards hounding decent, ordinary Australians-old people, the most vulnerable in our community-whereas a very significant proportion of social security funding appears to be wasted because of fraud. I certainly do not have the answers. We do know that in an astonishingly cavalier fashion the Minister's predecessor, in a 60 Minutes interview late last year, shrugged his shoulders and more or less washed his hands of responsibility for this admittedly significant amount of fraud. What measures has this Minister undertaken to combat this fraud so as to save taxpayers ten times the amount that the assets test will reap in its first year? This Minister is, of course, very concerned about taxation matters and about reaping government revenue. I suggest that he explain to the Parliament what measures he directed towards combating fraud he has undertaken since assuming his portfolio. All honourable members of this Parliament have, on numerous occasions, been visited by constituents who have told us that they know of people who are collecting unemployment benefits while working during the day. On numerous occasions they have told us of people cohabiting while at the same time receiving separate pensions. Leaving aside any moral considerations, there is the problem of deliberate fraud. So many of the examples brought to our attention are completely unsubstantiated and we can take them no further. It is certainly not our responsibility to take the place of social security inspectors. So, for that reason, tonight I express a growing disquiet amongst honourable members on this side of the House at least as well as amongst an increasing number of our constituents. There is a fairly widespread feeling in the community that the Government is not doing anything, let alone something substantial, to ensure that social security benefits are received only by those who fit the criteria. So I for one, and no doubt many of my colleagues, would be pleased to hear from the Minister on these matters. Failing a satisfactory answer, we can conclude only that while the Minister is expert at hounding down defenceless, worthy Australians over the assets test, he is turning his back on what is clearly a much wider and more significant problem. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.43) —It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise tonight to defend the one million Australians of Italian birth and origin. I am sad because I thought that discrimination and victimisation of people with non-Anglo-Saxon names was no longer perceived as an Australian activity. Sadly, I was wrong. On 31 March this year, an article appeared in the Canberra Times under a heading relating to alleged bogus claims from faked motor vehicle accidents. The accompanying cartoon, spread across three columns, showed five stereotype Italians all crying 'whip-a-lasha' following a motor vehicle crash. A sturdy Anglo-Saxon policeman was dealing with them. 'One at a time' he was saying, as if they were inferior beings. Implicit in the cartoon was a suggestion that Italians were fakes and/or criminals. Members of the Italian community argue that such cartoons and headlines are an incitement to racism in the work place, the school yard and places of recreation. I am inclined to agree with them. Further on in the article the following statement was made: The frauds were detected because of the frequency with which certain surnames kept appearing. With Anglo-Saxons, it is hard to detect any such pattern because of the huge number of surnames used. But among the Italian community, for instance, with fewer surnames, it was not difficult to find that the same dozen or so names keep popping up. What has made the Italian names even more conspicuous is that several of them developed a certain degree of notoriety as a result of the findings of the Woodward Royal Commission. . . Lessons to be learned from this would appear to be, firstly, that one's surname identifies one with as large a group as possible and, secondly, if one shares a surname with anyone who has become infamous, one should change it. Maybe with my surname, I should do the same. The Italian-Australian Anti-defamation Committee, in its protest about this article, unanimously agreed that the article, taken to its logical conclusion, meant that citizens with Italian surnames should be investigated-first, because of their racial origin; and, then, if they happen to share the same surname as other Italians, this should be an indication of their guilt by association. I am sad that it has become necessary to form a national anti-defamation committee, but I would support the move because it is quite clear that many Australians have not yet attained the maturity to separate people from stereotypes. Most Australians-I hope most honourable members of this House-would recoil from association with the beer-swilling Australian stereotype and most Italians would recoil from the cartoon stereotype attributed to them in the Canberra Times. Nobody deserves to be victimised or treated in a discriminatory manner because of their race, religion, sex, marital status or any other reason, especially if they have common surnames. I seek the support of honourable members and, indeed, of the Australian community to help stamp out such discrimination so that in future it will no longer be necessary to form a national anti-defamation committee. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.47) —Tonight I would like to say a few words on behalf of a very important sector of the small business community, namely the professional transport driver, otherwise known as the owner-driver. Mr Porter —Commonly known as the truckie. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, commonly known as the truckie. That is a stereotype that the truckies are proud of. The situation is that recently the Professional Transport Drivers Association Western Australia (Inc.) made a submission to the Federal Taxation Review Committee. It is dated March 1985. On the very first page of the submission, it is stated: An owner-driver contributes almost one-third of his gross income to Governments by way of indirect taxes. If this is the year of taxation and if this is the year of the tax summit, it is about time that governments at all levels decided whether or not-- Mr Hand —Are you going to the tax summit? Mr TUCKEY —I learned from the first one. I will never be bored by such a set-up and a circus again. The association draws the following matter to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It states: The owner driver in the July 1983 submission would now be earning an extra $7,502 per year from increases in rates. The increased cost of his fuel and tyres alone, has increased by $9,747.50 per year. That was before the huge impositions that have been placed upon an owner-driver's business because of the high levels of fuel consumption brought about by recent decisions of this Government. It might be of interest just to look at some of the indirect and other taxes that burden the road transport industry. I do not think this comes out in some of the figures and information that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is giving us at the moment. The association states that indirect tax on a prime mover, amortised over a four-year life is $170,000; sales tax is $25,000 and stamp duty is $5,100. On a per annum basis that is $7,300. Similarly, on a trailer, the indirect tax for one year is $1,176. The fuel for 30 trips from Perth to Sydney and return, at an average of 50c cents per litre, costs $60,000. Federal tax and State levies are 29.5c a litre. I point out that that is a lot less than it is now. It costs $35,400 for a truck driver to operate his own truck. Oil attracts another $200 in indirect tax per annum. He has to buy 22 tyres per year. At $465 per tyre that costs $10,230. He has to pay 25 per cent import duty and 20 per cent sales tax of $215.54 per tyre, which is $4,610. There are other items such as tarpaulins and chains which amount to $175. Registration and licence fees amount to $1,451. The taxes on their insurance-stamp duty-amount to $417 per annum. The stamp duty on leasing finance amounts to $931 a year. Bank charges, which cover things such as the bank accounts debit tax and the Federal withdrawing tax, amount to $237. Then, of course, there are the taxes on all the parts-the batteries and other replaceable items which they purchase. That amount is $2,100 per annum. That adds up to $53,977 per year or $4,499 a month, or $1,038 a week. As they say, then there is the withholding tax, where that is applicable, which could add up to $15,000 on top of the indirect tax that is such a burden. I am very sympathetic to this group. Mr Milton —Why don't we go back to rail transport? Mr TUCKEY —I do not think that anybody should laugh at these people. It is a major tragedy that such a very important part of our industry is so burdened by tax. One-third of all the income which those drivers receive goes out in indirect taxes. That is not income tax; it is just the indirect taxes that they pay. Somebody has to address himself to this situation. When one adds to that the total running costs of nearly $78,000, out of the income that these drivers mention, one can see that there is precious little in it for the owner-driver in the end. In fact, they have told me, on the turnover which I quoted, that their net return per year is $13,356. It is time that people looked to that problem. The industry is overburdened with tax. I ask that all honourable members in this place take note of the problem. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.52) —Last Saturday afternoon, the weather being fine and sunny, I, along with my State colleague the member for Balmain, Peter Crawford, decided to take a stroll around the Mort Dock site in Balmain. This area was until quite recently a container terminal. Controversy now rages over the future of the site, with the State Government and local council favouring a mix of waterfront park and public housing. Most of the land is now owned by the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales. As we approached the northern end of the site, we were confronted by a curious spectacle. Alongside a disused shed, a row of Avis rental trucks were parked. Behind these were a row of blue phone-box like structures reminiscent of the time-machine Tardis in Doctor Who, with the words 'port-a-loo' printed on the side. From within the shed sounds of frenetic activity emerged. As we stood bemused observing this spectacle, we were approached by several men in overalls who advised us that it would not be in our interest to stick around. The Mort Dock site, incidentally, is open and accessible to the public, and has been the site of numerous meetings, picnics, fairs and other activities. Children can be found playing there most weekends. We identified ourselves and asked the men in overalls to do likewise. This they decided not to do. Repeated questions failed to elicit any information about their identity, their organisation or what they were doing. All we got were vague hints that something unpleasant might befall us if we stuck around. We decided then that discretion was the better part of valour and left. Upon further inquiry, we discovered that an anti-terrorist exercise involving Commonwealth and State authorities was in progress. The units were the Special Air Service Regiment and the State Police SWAS group. This apparently centred on the simulated seizure of a ship full of yellowcake. The disused iron ore carrier Iron Duke moored off-shore was to be the target. It is interesting that of all the groups of organisations that might conceivably commit an act of terrorism, the anti-nuclear movement is singled out. The groups involved have absolutely no record of recourse to such tactics. This raises the obvious question of whether the activity was hazardous. If so, no attempt was made to secure the dock area, at least the point at which we entered, and there were no warning signs. Today I received some more alarming information. I was contacted by a constituent who, along with a companion, walked to the end of Louisa Road, Balmain to the waterfront park at Long Nose Point. The Iron Duke is moored several hundred yards away. As they walked back along Louisa Road, they were accosted by four or five men dressed in black, wearing caps and face masks. They were armed with pistols and sub-machine guns. With guns thrust into their faces, the two were led into a yard adjoining an old factory building and interrogated and searched for about 15 minutes before being released. It seems that those conducting the exercise mistook the two men for those who were acting the part of the terrorists. I stress that the two victims did nothing but walk along a public road minding their own business. There is no doubt that they are victims of a criminal assault. We can only speculate as to what may have happened had they resisted. I have written to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) seeking an explanation for these extraordinary events. At this stage it seems probable that the incident was the work of the State police, rather than the SAS. Nonetheless, a full explanation and a guarantee that the episode will not be repeated are essential. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.56) —I rise tonight to join my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) in raising yet again the question of the pensions assets test. I am rather pleased to see that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is here so I can remind him of the question I asked him at Question Time yesterday which he failed to answer. I asked the Minister whether it was true that a pensioner couple living on a farm who had lost their pension under the assets test could sell their farm, buy an expensive house in the city and qualify for the pension again. The Minister refused to answer the question, although the answer was obvious-yes, they could do that and yes, they would get the pension again. In his answer he said: The assets test was designed in such a way as to be equitable and fair. The test must be fundamentally administered in a way that does not make distinctions between people living in rural as opposed to urban situations. I do not think I have ever heard such a load of rubbish in all my life. Either it is fair and equitable or it is not. If the situation is that the country pensioners are being disadvantaged because they happen to live on small farms as compared with their city counterparts who happen to live in an exclusive area of the city, I really wonder how the Minister can, in all seriousness, say that the pensions assets test is fair. No matter how many times we try to get this message through to him he seems to have a bit of a blind spot so we have to remind him again and again that his assets test is neither fair nor equitable. Mr Hodgman —Why doesn't he pick on someone his own age? Mr HAWKER —That is a good question. One thing I am rather curious about is how the Minister could stand in here, I think on 19 April, and talk about the assets test having unearthed 12 millionaires on the pension. How did he find this out? Honourable members will recall that when the forms were sent out for the assets test if a pensioner decided that he did not qualify for a pension under the test all he had to do was to tick the appropriate square and that was the end of it. If people did that, how did the Minister or his Department find out that some pensioners had assets obviously well in excess of the limits that had been imposed by this Government but were still getting the pension? Mr Gear —Because they asked the pensioners. Mr HAWKER —I thank the honourable member; that is exactly what I was getting at. We were told that there would be no intrusion and that any information given would be kept private. My curiosity has been aroused for some time and it was not until last weekend when I happened to be talking to a pensioner in my electorate that I found out what was really going on. Mr Cunningham —You actually talked to one, did you? Mr HAWKER —I have had more pensioners in my office than probably any other honourable member. I hear the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) trying to interject; it is interesting to note that I have had letters from pensioners in some of his colleague's electorates in Victoria. I wonder why they are writing to me. As I say, my curiosity was aroused until I met a pensioner who said she had told the Department, the Minister's officers, that she did not qualify for a pension. That should have been it but it seems that for some of the over-eager beavers that was not enough. They rang her back and said 'Can you give us some details of your assets?' That example begins to answer a few questions. We have had so much talk from the Minister and his predecessor that there would not be any intrusion into privacy, that pensioners who did not qualify for the pension would be left alone; yet here we find a pensioner-- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —Madam Acting Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(11.00) —I wish to make some preliminary reply to the questions raised a short time ago by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) in regard to a counter-terrorist operation in Sydney some days ago. I was informed of the nature and details of the exercise in advance. It was a New South Wales Police exercise supported by the Special Air Service Regiment. The area of Snails Bay, including Pier 12 and Pier 13, was secured by a New South Wales police cordon and checkpoints and other areas were secured for public safety. The exercise did not at any time constitute a danger to residents. At no time did members of the counter-terrorist force carry explosives or live ammunition. To make the exercise more realistic, blank ammunition and pyrotechnics specifically designed for training were used. These were held in a secured area under military guard. There were small quantities of live ammunition and explosives stored at a military holding area in a disused warehouse at Mort Bay under both police and military guard, with police approval. As I indicated earlier the primary responsibility of the exercise rests with the New South Wales Police. It is handling the public aspects of it. I am concerned by the matter the honourable gentleman raised. I hope that some of the information I have given will set his mind at rest on some of the matters he has raised with me privately. I did not manage to hear all the points raised today. If they are also in his letter I will take that under advice and give him a further response at a later time. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.02 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Sports Commission, and for other purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to make provision for the collection of levy imposed by the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Act 1985 and the Dairy Products Levy Act 1977, to establish trust funds for use in support of the marketing of dairy produce, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 May 1985: Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 23-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Aviation-Roylance,D.J.