Monday, 20 May 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I preface my question to the Treasurer by welcoming you back and remarking how nice it is to see you looking so well. I ask the Treasurer: Were the Forward Estimates for 1985-86 predicated on a non-farm gross domestic product growth of approximately 2.5 per cent compared with about 4 1/2 per cent this year? If not, on what assumptions were those Forward Estimates based? Mr KEATING —On a consumer price index rate of 4 1/2 per cent and an implicit non-farm price deflator of 5 per cent. Mr SAUNDERSON —Has the Prime Minister seen comments over the weekend by Kim Hughes on the proposed rebel tour of South Africa? Do these comments change the Government's attitude to the tour? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, may I also, on behalf of the Government, welcome you and say how pleased we are to see you looking so well again. Mr SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HAWKE —I have seen the remarks made by Kim Hughes. I must say that I think too much of the debate has come to be centred now on individuals. I would like to get it back to principles, where I believe it belongs. The Government remains firm in its opposition to the tour. I would draw the attention of the House to certain facts. The fact that the South African authorities had to offer enormous sums of money for Australian players to tour, the fact that the tour has been arranged in such a clandestine and conspiratorial manner behind the backs of the Australian cricket authorities and the fact that the emphasis has been so strongly put on the bringing together of an Australian team to play tests against South Africa rather than just getting a few Australian individuals demonstrate that South Africa is desperate for the political legitimacy which is associated with a sporting tour by an apparently representative Australian team. The South African authorities are prepared, apparently, to go to almost any lengths to achieve that end. Clear evidence of South African political involvement in the tour is provided by comments in today's Press in which it is reported that people at the level of the South African Government have expressed joy about the apparent problems that have been created for the Australian Government on this issue. It is interesting to note that the organisers of the tour attempt to argue that sport, including cricket, in South Africa is racially integrated. The fact that this is not so is dramatically demonstrated by what I am about to say. I ask those on the other side of the House who have been raucous just to listen quietly to these facts. Several months ago, well before we had heard of this rebel tour, the Government invited Mr Krifh Mackerdhuj, President of the South African Cricket Board, a non-racial body which opposes the South African Cricket Union and a member of the non-racial South African Council on Sport, to visit Australia. That was the invitation. His organisation and similar organisations oppose international sporting contacts with South Africa while the apartheid system continues to prevail. Mr Mackerdhuj was due to arrive in Australia shortly. Our Embassy in South Africa has reported over the weekend that he will not be able to accept our invitation. Why will he not be able to accept our invitation? It is because the South African Government will not give him a passport. This represents the third occasion on which Mr Mackerdhuj has been refused a passport. I suggest that any reasonable person would have to agree that nothing more clearly demonstrates the falseness of the glib assertion that South African sport is not political. There is no intention on this Government's part to take similar action towards the rebel cricketers. This is a free country and, as they have correctly said, they are free and have every right to make up their own minds, but the Government is concerned that Australia should not give comfort to the apartheid regime. We also have to think of the possible consequences for Australia's international competition not only in cricket but also in other events such as the World Cup Athletics to be held in Canberra in October, the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh and Brisbane's bid for the 1992 Olympic Games. It is said that Australia trades with South Africa and that therefore it is illogical and hypo- critical that we should take an attitude against sporting contact. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition at least, if not those raucous members in cockies' corner, understands the distinction. Let me make it clear that I am not going to say of Kim Hughes and other people that they may not, with full integrity, believe that they are able and entitled to make the decision they have made. I would simply say quietly on behalf of the Government and, I hope, on behalf of at least a considerable number of people on the Opposition side of this House, that they should consider the position in these terms: It is quite clear that there is nothing that the Australian Government can do unilaterally to stop trade with South Africa. No actions we can take in that area would affect the legitimacy or otherwise of or give aid or comfort to the South African regime. We have made it quite clear that to have an effect, there would need to be universal or near universal action in the area of trade sanctions. The critical difference is that Australia and a few other sporting nations have the unique capacity to have an effect on South Africa. South Africa craves, through international sporting competition, the legitimacy which that international competition gives it. Because we have that unique capacity and because the South African Government so obviously craves that recognition, as is obvious from all that is going on at the moment, we have that opportunity. I suggest, quietly and responsibly, to Kim Hughes and these other fine Australian cricketers, who have given so much for their country and for whom their country has done so much, that they think about and understand that distinction. Having said those things, it is legitimate, in conclusion, to ask: Where does the Opposition stand on this matter? As usual, chaos reigns. In the House on 15 May I commended the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Goldstein, for his support of the Government's position which he made clear was consistent with the Gleneagles Agreement. On 17 May, however, on the ABC National program the Opposition spokesman on sport, the honourable member for Richmond from the National Party, not from the Liberal Party, supported the rebel tour. I ask, as I believe the House is entitled to ask: What does the Leader of the Opposition propose to do about this? Is he prepared to follow the leadership and the principal position of his predecessor Malcolm Fraser, or is he once again prepared to act in a short term, spineless and opportunistic manner? I conclude by quoting the honourable member for Goldstein in the Australian Financial Review of 16 May. It is important that Opposition members remember this. This is what the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs said on that date: Malcolm Fraser once said to me 'In politics there is very little room for conscious but, I Malcolm Fraser, would die in the ditch on the question of race'. The member for Goldstein went on to say: 'And he knew that was my disposition and I made that public last year . . . and many times in my actions'. The member for Goldstein concluded: As far as I am concerned there is no doubt the Opposition policy is what it was in government. It is what it was and will remain that. That was a clear statement of principle and it is a pity that there is not a repudiation of the alleged shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism who purports to speak for the Opposition on this. Mr PEACOCK —Has the Government's disharmony and factional fighting over tax policy abated sufficiently to allow the Treasurer to advise the House whether the White Paper on taxation will contain a preferred position-and I do not refer to the Prime Minister's one of last week? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition has been a Minister in this place for years and he knows that this Government, like all governments, will present its documentation when it is good and ready. That is when the Leader of the Opposition will receive his answer. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging is a genuine advance in medical diagnosis. There is great concern among radiologists in this country about the need for its controlled introduction. Can the Minister advise the House of the Government's plans to ensure that this important new medical technology is introduced in a rational and planned way? Dr BLEWETT —The Government recognises that nuclear magnetic resonance imaging is an important new radiology technology, particularly accurate and sensitive in diagnosis of brain and spinal disease. However, there are major costs associated with this technology. The individual scanner costs between $1.2m and $2.6m and there are high operating costs, but it has the potential to generate significant costs for the health system and there are dangers of inappropriate and excessive use. For these reasons the National Health Technology Assessment Advisory Panel proposed that NMRIs should be introduced in three public hospitals, and there should be no medical benefits for a period of three years while they are evaluated. However, that proposal has been overtaken by events and by the development of NMRI technology. I have therefore written to all State Ministers proposing an alternative method of funding the controlled introduction of this new technology. Under this proposal there will be a Medicare benefit for NMRI services, but it would be restricted to services performed in one nominated installation, preferably a teaching hospital in each mainland State. For people in Tasmania and the Northern Territory access to those scanners would be through the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme. Thus there would be a two-year trial for these machines, with one unit in each mainland State, although I have indicated to the governments of New South Wales and Victoria that we would be prepared to consider a request for a second unit after one year. Of course, the States will meet the costs of purchasing or leasing the installations, although they will be able to levy a facility change for fee for service use. This will provide a proper way of evaluating this new technology and assure a cost-efficient introduction. I am looking forward to receiving answers soon from all Ministers. I point out to the honourable member for Perth that the Western Australian Health Department supports the proposal and plans a single nuclear magnetic resonance imaging machine in the Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital. It supports the general approach as a proper method of evaluating such a procedure before any general benefit is provided. I also point out that both the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists accept this approach to the new technology. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Did the suppressed Economic Planning Advisory Council report suggest that unemployment rates might fall to between 6 and 7 per cent if there were a reduction in potential wages drift? Has this report been suppressed because the implications which flow from this conclusion are incompatible with the Government's and the Australian Council of Trade Union's opposition to a deregulation of the centralised rigid labour market? Mr KEATING —There has been no suppression of any report. The office of EPAC makes its own decision on what it presents to EPAC. In fact, Mr Miller issued a statement this morning in which he said that he believed it would take some considerable time before the office 'could be satisfied that the technical base of this work was sound and sufficiently well understood'. In other words, he is making the point that he has a draft statement on his hands. It was his view that it should not be put to EPAC, although I might add that he said this morning that, contrary to the report which was published today, the draft report indicated that an unemployment rate as low as 5 per cent by 1989 appeared feasible. Of course, that is at odds with the report in the Australian Financial Review, to which the honourable gentleman referred. So the parameters of this question about unemployment rising, on the basis of this draft report, are wrong. I make the more important point that Mr Miller himself has said that it will take some considerable time before he is satisfied with the technical base of the work. What he wishes to give EPAC is entirely a matter for his office. Mr JACOBI —Mr Speaker, I am pleased to see you back. I address my question to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that during the last decade Australian consumers have, as a direct result of non-uniformity of food laws, faced higher costs in excess of half a billion dollars? The honourable member for Capricornia has had a long struggle in this area. Did the Minister preside over a Health Ministers conference last week? Did those Ministers agree on the need for uniform legislation? Do we need seven sets of bureaucrats to police a tin of baked beans? If not, will the Government exercise its undoubted constitutional power and enact legislation to remedy this mess? If the Minister is not prepared to do so, he has my personal assurance that I will seek Caucus support to bring in a private member's Bill to clean up the mess. Dr BLEWETT —On the evidence that I have, the assertion by the honourable member for Hawker that the lack of uniform food standards in this country has cost the consumer something like $500m over the past decade is correct. Certainly the present estimate is that it is costing something like $50m a year. As to the second part of this question, no, I did not preside over the Health Ministers Conference last week. That role was performed by my colleague the Minister for Health in Queensland. The conference considered the issue of uniform standards. The Commonwealth put forward a proposal that every State should automatically, by reference, include the food standards issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council and that a food council consisting of the Health Ministers should be created to deal with any disputes and to ensure continuing uniformity in the implementation of those standards. I must say that the Health Ministers received those proposals sympathetically. There are a number of details to be worked out, but I believe that this proposal offers a co-operative way of ensuring national food standards in this country. I also made it quite clear that, if we could not do it through this co-operative method, because of the cost to the community the Commonwealth would have seriously to consider national legislation. Mr PEACOCK —Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the Confederation of Australian Industry seeking access to the secret information which he made available to the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding the tax summit? Has he replied to that letter? Does he propose to release the information to the industry group? Furthermore, will he release the letter immediately to other summit participants or, at the very least, release it publicly so that we can all see what was in that information and that it is not just part of a deal with the ACTU? Mr HAWKE —To the best of my recollection, I have not sighted such a letter; but I must say that subject to recollection. I will check and after Question Time confirm. The much more important point is that I have had discussions with my colleague the Treasurer and it is not a question of having some secret negotiations with the ACTU. I noticed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in some comment-I think it was in the weekend Press-quite straightforwardly referred to the fact that the 1982 Budget represented the outcome of discussions with the ACTU-- Mr Howard —Yes; but I did not put a freedom of information ban on it, as your mate did. Mr HAWKE —Whether or not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition put bans on anything, I am simply saying that the concept of the Government talking with the trade union movement makes a great deal of sense. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for having done it then. Mr Peacock —Why don't you give the material to other groups? Mr HAWKE —I will come to that, if the Leader of the Opposition will just possess his little soul in patience. I have had discussions with the Treasurer and I believe that the Treasurer is quite happy to have further discussions with the business group in regard to taxation. He has already, as I have, had significant discussions with the group; but if the CAI and the Business Council of Australia would like to have further discussions with the Treasurer I believe that the Treasurer would be prepared to have the same sort of discussion, and in the same detail, as he had with the ACTU. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of reported remarks by the Chairman of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, Mr Jim Bye, that the new Federal dairy arrangements are a sell-out to New Zealand, that New Zealand vetoed some sections of the Kerin plan before the States had even seen it and that New Zealand was given more favourable consideration than Australian dairy interests? Are Mr Bye's remarks a correct interpretation of the Government's decisions regarding new Federal dairy arrangements? Mr KERIN —As honourable members are aware, I have been attending quite a few meetings and there is a lot of interest in the Government's plans for the dairy industry. As a result of those meetings, I have been receiving quite a few letters from dairy farmers who have been saying that at least they understand what is in the plan, because industry leadership is spreading a lot of propaganda, if not absolute lies. I have met with Mr Bye singly and collectively on at least three or four occasions and have gone through these issues with him. Of course, what is being played is straight politics and straight propaganda. Let me set the facts straight. There have been no deals, secret or otherwise, between the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government on dairy policy. There has been one unsolicited letter from the New Zealand High Commissioner to me which was an instruction from his Government detailing New Zealand's attitude to entitlements under the Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan. I also wrote to the New Zealand High Commissioner giving details of the Government's decisions on dairy arrangements. That letter was sent some time after I informed the States and had made a public announcement on the new arrangements. Whenever dairying was discussed at the Australian Agricultural Council, New Zealand, which has observer status to that Council, was excluded. The New Zealand Government never sought to, had a chance to, nor was it afforded an opportunity to, veto the Government's proposals. What the Government says is that the retention of an efficient and competitive Australian industry is the best defence against fair competition from any country, New Zealand included, in third markets or here at home. The new dairy arrangements will make the industry more efficient and competitive, unlike the current arrangements that have caused the problems we have-the socialistic Sinclair scheme-which are sending farmers and factories broke and leading Australian consumers to subsidise foreign consumers with little benefit to Australian farmers. Under the closer economic relations, negotiated with manic determination by Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony, dairy products from New Zealand are allowed into Australia in unrestricted quantities duty free. The same things prevailed under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We cannot wish New Zealand away. It is another country, you fools. A memorandum of understanding between the Australian and New Zealand industries limited New Zealand exports to Australia, and then only for cheese, which are limited to the rate of growth in the Australian market. What the Government has said is that unfair competition from New Zealand or anywhere else will not be tolerated. If New Zealand should be found to be subsidising exports in Australia in order to meet the Australian price-that is, 130 per cent of the average export returns for three years for Australian products, above the undumped, unsubsidised export prices-then the Government will take action under the provisions of CER. What Mr Bye is spreading is lies, and he knows it. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the last six months of brawling between Cabinet and Caucus and between Cabinet Ministers which has contributed, undoubtedly, to the reduction of confidence in the Australian Government, both at home and abroad. Is it not the case that the latest public row between the Prime Minister and his Minister for Education over the reintroduction of tertiary fees can only further undermine the confidence in government? Does he intend to advise the House that he now accepts that the concepts of government in this nation have changed, that collective responsibility is no longer an aim or an element of government but rather that fractured factionalised fighting is to be the order of the day under the guise of some open discussion of policy? On that note, will he advise the Australian people just when he proposes to institute the discussion on the reintroduction of tertiary fees? Mr HAWKE —This is probably the most hypocritical question that has ever been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It is an Opposition which is wracked by division between the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and within the Liberal Party. Members of the Liberal and National parties hate and detest one another personally and their policies. Having exposed the hypocrisy of this gentleman opposite, the answers to his three questions are: No, no, no. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to the Government's decision to terminate the diesel fuel subsidy for the Great Barrier Reef island resorts. I ask: What is the likely impact of this decision on this vitally important tourist area? Mr JOHN BROWN —In short, the impact will be very small. I was rather bemused by what happened the other night when the Treasurer was making a speech and he mentioned the removal of this subsidy, which is worth something like $300,000 to the tourist islands. The almost manic glee with which that was greeted by the honourable member for Moncrieff, amongst others, simply staggered me. Perhaps I should put the history of this matter in context. In, I think, the 1980 Budget the then Government made a couple of incredible decisions regarding the tourist industry. One was to take from the tourist industry the exemption it had from paying diesel excise. The other was to put a 20 per cent sales tax on the building of boats. This Government decided in a time of great recession in the tourist industry in Queensland to allow the tourist islands to retain that exemption-it has meant something like $500,000 in a full year-to recompense those islands for the cost of electricity generation from diesel fuel. It must be remembered that that concession was given back to them at a time of recession in their industry. Of course, in the last two years the tourist industry has recreated enormous prosperity, especially in the tourist islands. I am sure that every Queensland member of the Opposition would be among the first, if he had one iota of honesty, to admit that. Their rate of occupancy and prosperity has gone through the roof in the last two years. The Government has made two decisions which have been principally responsible for that. One was the removal of the 20 per cent sales tax on the building of tourists boats. The return to those islands of the removal of that sales tax has been many hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is a great exemption which we have given back to them. They are now building their pleasure boats in Australia instead, as they were doing during the Opposition's period in government, of running off to Taiwan to build them and destroying an industry in Australia. The savings to those islands from being able to build those boats in Australia without sales tax has been hundreds of thousands of dollars. Having taken away $500,000 in the diesel excise exemption, one would have sworn blind from the reaction of honourable members opposite that the Government had wrought despair and disaster upon them. That is far from the truth. Also, with the support of the Treasurer, we increased the depreciation rate on the construction of buildings in tourist resorts from 2 1/2 to 4 per cent. The effect in Queensland has been quite profound. In fact, in the last two years there has been a 71 per cent improvement in the building of tourist resorts in Queensland simply because of that concession we gave them. The great guffaws of the Opposition that greeted that decision of $500,000 merely showed up how stupid members of the Opposition are. Mr KATTER —I thank you, Mr Speaker, and offer you a warm welcome home. Will the Minister for Defence inform the House what criteria were used in granting Australian Shipbuilding Industries (Western Australia) Pty Ltd the contract to build Australia's new patrol boats and why the submission by North Queensland Engineering and Agents Pty Ltd, whose patrol boat construction and design have received international acclaim, was rejected, to the disadvantage of numerous workers in the far north of Queensland who are already adding to the great pool of unemployment created by the abandonment of the sugar industry? Mr BEAZLEY —Perhaps I could start by going through for the honourable member the stated requirements which were developed in consultation with the Pacific nations interested in the boat and then answering his question as far as possible within the constraints of the necessary commercial in confidence requirements imposed on us. The areas looked for were the compliance of the proposed boat design with stated requirements, the cost, the level of Australian and New Zealand manufactured content, the ship builder's production capability, facilities and quality control arrangements, the ship builder's proposals for the training of the crews and maintainers of the boats, and the degree to which the boats could be supported and maintained locally by the participating nations. On top of that, the requirements for the boats were developed after, as I said, extensive consultation. They included survivability in extreme sea states occurring in the region, ability to operate continuously in rough seas, an overall length of 25 to 35 metres, a maximum sustained speed of 20 knots, a range of at least 2,500 nautical miles at 12 knots and provision for a crews of 14 as required for the envisaged role of the vessels. Quite a substantial number of the tenderers met all those requirements and were therefore capable for being considered in contrast with each other. The tenderer that was eventually successful on just about all of the criteria came out ahead of the other competitors-it would not have been selected otherwise-in cost and in the other areas that I indicated. The only proper basis on which one can appropriately take decisions in relation to a process in which one has sought bids from companies is to take advice on who most accurately meets those requirements. Where there is a clear meeting of those requirements and an obvious capability to perform to the standards set down, one must go to the tenderer that meets those requirements. That has been done in this instance and on those grounds ASI was awarded the contract. I appreciate the comments made about impacts in the area of NQEA. I did not need to be advised on that matter by the honourable member for Kennedy. The honourable member for Leichhardt keeps me constantly informed on that subject and he mounted- Mr Hodgman —Where is he? Mr BEAZLEY —Presumably he was not given notice of this matter by the honourable member for Kennedy. The honourable member for Leichhardt has strongly advocated the interests of the yard in his electorate as he would be expected to do given the significance of that company as an employer in his area. He comes to me with constant suggestions on ways in which we might overcome some of the problems that would be associated with that and I am giving consideration to those matters. One way in which we cannot overcome those problems is to enter into a process which effectively, for political reasons, perverts the tender process. We will not engage in that and we did not in this instance. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Trade. Is it a fact that Japan has brought down a package of trade liberalisation measures which have been widely reported in the Australian Press? Can the Minister inform the House if the recent package contains anything of significant benefit to Australia and what measures he proposes to take to ensure that Australia will benefit from Japan's measures to open its market? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question because it is a very important one indeed. The April package presents a positive step on the part of Japanese because, for the first time, it includes long term policies which are transparent and multilaterally focused. A three-year action program has been adopted based on recommendations of an advisory committee of private sector experts-Australia presented its views to this committee-in such areas as tariff, standards, certification systems and promotion of imports. Japan accepts the basic approach of 'freedom in principle, restrictions as exceptions' and Prime Minister Nakasone made an unprecedented direct appeal to the Japanese people to buy more foreign goods. The framework is now set for Japan to introduce new trade liberalisation measures that will have a real impact. We have impressed upon Japan, from the Prime Ministerial level down, the need to ensure that its market opening measures are for all comers, not just for American products and services. Solutions to trade friction issues with Japan's partners must not lead to a bad result for Australia or other Pacific countries. I turn to the second part of the honourable member's question. There are a number of positive elements in the April package and in Japan's trade liberalisation program generally. An element of the package is an expansion of the specific products trade expansion program-STEP. The Japanese Government has responded positively to Australia's request for assistance under STEP. For example, Australian wine and furniture are included in STEP and we will be seeking to include other products in the future. Additionally, Australia will benefit from improved plant quarantine facilities at Narita Airport and improved treatment in standards and certification systems for certain manufactured products. Much more remains to be done to translate trade liberalisation rhetoric into practical actions that will significantly open up the Japanese market to foreign suppliers. At the Australia-Japan Ministerial committee meeting to be held in Tokyo in June, the Australian Government will impress upon the Japanese Government the need for its trade liberalisation measures to have a broad multilateral appeal rather than a selective focus aimed only at its principal trading partners. We will also continue to press that the action program addresses the issues of access and import procedures for agricultural and horticultural products- Mr Hunt —Do you want an extension of time? Mr Peacock —He has got only a couple more paragraphs to read. Mr KERIN —If the National Party of Australia does not want to hear about access for horticultural products, if it does not want to hear it- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should return to his answer. Mr KERIN —Including the administration of Japan's plant quarantine regulations. We will also encourage Japan to assume a forthright position of leadership in moving trading nations towards a genuine round of multilateral trade negotiations, focusing on liberalisation of tariff and non-tariff impediments to world trade. Mr ANDREW —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of the media attention focused on the planned army expansion in the Bathurst-Orange area, is the Minister aware of the threatened total removal of the communities of Point Parham and Webb Beach in South Australia to provide for an expansion to the Port Wakefield proof range? Is the Minister aware that such an expansion will mean the acquisition by the Department of Defence of some of South Australia's finest recreation beaches? Will the Minister undertake to visit the residents of Point Parham and Webb Beach prior to any decision being taken? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the various points that have been made by the honourable member for Wakefield because I am nagged constantly on it by the Special Minister of State, who makes his case in a somewhat more extreme manner than the honourable member made his. In that regard, I thank the honourable member. The circumstances to which the honourable member for Wakefield referred are well known to me. On the last point as to whether or not I would visit that area before any final decisions were taken, the answer is yes, I will. I have already undertaken to the honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Special Minister of State, that I will do that. As to whether or not I am aware of the degrees of difficulty and dislocation that will be created, the answer is yes. There is a substantially important task performed by that range as far as the Army is concerned. It is the one place we have for reliably testing shells and it will be very difficult to find an alternative location if we are not going to proceed with the utilisation of the range. There are some other options. I am not sure how acceptable those options are but I will be going through them before I take any final decision on the matter. Any final decision that is taken will balance the Army's requirements in this area with an understanding of the difficulties such a decision would create for local citizens. Mr MAHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In consequence of escalation of civil unrest in both Lebanon and Sri Lanka, will the Minister give consideration to allowing again migrants from each of those nations to enter Australia under the special humanitarian program? Mr HURFORD —I thank the honourable member for Lowe for keeping up his reputation of asking questions without notice. The answer is that the Government does now look at applications for entry into this country under the special humanitarian program, both from the Lebanon and from Sri Lanka. There are many trouble spots in this world. We have the Indo-Chinese problem, and we had something to say about that last week, but there is also the northern Irish problem and the Sikh problem in India. One could go around the world and notice that there are many applications to come to this country under the conditions that people would be so much better off here than elsewhere. In fact, we get two million inquiries for a program that is running at the rate of about 80,000. Among that 80,000, of course, we give a lot of preference to those under family reunion. The Government looks sympathetically at every one of the applications that come to it. There is already a very special program for the Lebanon. Indeed, we are considering every day applications from Sri Lanka and the other trouble spots I have mentioned. Mr McGAURAN —Will the Minister for Social Security inform the House of current estimates of fraud involving social security payments, conceded by his predecessor to be in the region of $300m? Has the Minister initiated any new measures to combat fraud which would result in the saving of $25m claimed by the Treasurer in his economic statement of 14 May? Finally, if there are no new measures, why has such a sizable sum only now been considered recoverable? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is extremely important in this area to define one's terms. While it is true that there is and has been through the years a substantial problem in the Department of Social Security in terms of overpayments, that is not to say that there is such a substantial problem in terms of fraud. I think the fundamental problem that we deal with in the Department of Social Security is more to do with people being paid money to which they are certainly not entitled; it is not necessarily their fault and there is not in any sense any intention on their part to receive payment in an immoral way. So I think it is important to recognise that for the most part these substantial overpayments have resulted from regrettable errors that we need to overcome. It is also true that a small percentage of the total overpayments-perhaps less than 10 per cent-relates to some kind of fraud. So the Department in terms of its strategy seeks certainly to reduce the level of overpayment and to eliminate fraud. I think if we are to administer social security payments more effectively and to reduce fraud substantially, which is certainly what we are seeking to do this year as we did last year, a systems approach needs to be applied. I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that last year we shifted towards a system of direct deposits. This system of paying people by way of direct deposits as opposed to paying by cheque, is a much more efficient and effective system which will not only reduce costs but also will reduce overpayments and the level of fraud. Finally, in terms of the approach that we are taking this year, we are seeking through the system of computerisation which operates within the Department, to extend the cross-checking process within the Department and between departments to try to detect cases where we may, without that information being properly cross-checked, make payment which could otherwise be unwarranted. We believe from past experience that if a strategy is developed, we will be able to recover very significantly in the area of overpayments. So the estimate of $25m, which is rather less than what we would save this year through direct deposits, is an estimate based on that strategic approach. I think in the past too much emphasis has been placed in the Department of Social Security on the labour intensive approach with perhaps the overuse of field officer visits. Those field officer visits remain. I guess they are part of the detection system of the Department of Social Security. However, I think a more systemic approach will achieve much greater savings with much less invasion of people's privacy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976, I present the Australia-Japan Foundation annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Egg Export Legislation Repeal Act 1984, I present the Australian Egg Board financial statements and audit report for 1984-85, which was indicated in the statement which I tabled on 15 May 1985. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on electric motors and generating sets. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on organic anionic surface acting agents and preparations thereof-developing country preferences. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's interim report on assistance for the consumption of fertilisers and short term assistance for the production of phosphatic fertilisers. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970, I present the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Science and Technology Statement for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SIMMONS —Most unfairly, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SIMMONS —In the Land newspaper of 16 May 1985, in the column on page 9 a most misleading statement appeared entitled 'Explorer'. Essentially, the reference was to the Government's decision to proceed with an environmental impact statement on the Bathurst-Orange area relating to the proposed amalgamated schools of infantry and artillery for the Department of Defence with certain statements being attributed to a local group known as the Central Tablelands No Base Committee. One statement claimed inter alia 'Local state and Federal politicians (who won't even talk to them)', and so on. Obviously, as I am the only Federal member in the affected area, the obvious reference can only be to me. The Central Tablelands No Base Committee placed a series of advertisements in local newspapers in late September 1984 indicating that, by resolution of a special meeting held on 16 September 1984, it was prepared to use standover tactics towards local businesses which disagreed with its attitude or which did not support it by displaying a 'No Base' sticker in their windows. I believe that such intimidatory behaviour-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the matter, not correcting where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr SIMMONS —Mr Speaker, I make the point that I believe that such intimidatory behaviour is unacceptable. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. In a personal explanation, he is entitled only to discuss where he has been personally misrepresented, not to debate the matter. Mr SIMMONS —I am getting to that point, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest you do, because you have been giving the argument for the last couple of minutes. Mr SIMMONS —I wish to stress that, while I have had no formal contact with this Committee, I still communicate with those affected individuals, many of whom are willing to discuss their genuinely held concerns in a calm and courteous manner. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —Yes, I do, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BLUNT —Today in Question Time the Prime Minister grossly misrepresented my position with respect to apartheid and the proposed tour of South Africa by a team of 14 Australians. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister sought to do that because-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not start to debate the matter. He will get on with correcting where he has been misrepresented. Mr BLUNT —My statements with respect to this tour have been critical of the Prime Minister and his Government's policy. I have criticised the Prime Minister's bullying approach to Kim Hughes, his public victimisation of the man and his family, and his intimidation by using the full weight of his office in public against this individual. On 17 May I gave an interview to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news program National. The interview was of some length and the only part of the interview broadcast was this, and I quote from the transcript: I support Kim Hughes' right to decide to play in South Africa. He's an individual, he's a professional cricketer, he has to make a living. If he can live with his conscience in playing with South Africa, he has a perfect right to take that decision. Not withstanding that that quotation was taken out of the complete interview, I stand by it as I still believe that this country is a free country, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's intention to censor the use of the Press to cover this matter and to use the Taxation Office-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now starting to debate the matter. I have made it quite clear to honourable members that, when they are given the indulgence of the Chair, they are permitted to correct where they have been personally misrepresented. The honourable member is going beyond that and, unless he takes up the point on which he has been misrepresented, I must ask him to resume his seat. Mr BLUNT —One final point of clarification, I would invite the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to refer to my Press statement of 19 April to ascertain my attitude and the coalition's attitude in relation to this cricket tour. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generation of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Kent,Mr Halverson,Mr Lloyd,Mr O'Keefe,Mr Peacock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia 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. 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 on 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. by Mr Lionel Bowen,Mr Humphreys and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, 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 enterprises finally sell these assets are not ''windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; 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 Burr and Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for 'Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985); and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March 1985, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully shows their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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 affect 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 the committment 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 and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the introduction of the Federal Government plan for the dairy industry will put thousands of dairyfarmers and even more people associated with the dairy industry out of work. Australian dairyfarmers, in particular Victorian and Tasmanian, are the most efficient in the world, and the loss of such an efficient industry to the Australian economy would be devastating. The undersigned humbly petition the Federal Parliament to carry out an impact study with the dairy industry before any introduction of the proposed dairy industry plan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed that Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia, will be closed down on 30 June 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency will be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 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 Spender. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Social Security has sought my indulgence to correct an answer he gave during Question Time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —I referred to one per cent of overpayments relating to deliberate misrepresentation. It should have been 10 per cent, and I would like permission to correct the record. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The highest real interest rates in Australia for fifty years. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.00) —This Government is always talking about the record things it has done. There is one record we never heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talk about, and that is the record real interest rates the Hawke Government has given us over the last two and a bit years. So that we get it straight, the real interest rate is the difference between the rate of inflation and the nominal rate of interest. Last Friday one of the largest private trading banks in Australia, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, lifted its prime interest rate for loans over $100,000 to no less than 17 1/2 per cent. If one accepts that we now have an inflation rate which is running at about 5 1/2 per cent, that means that at the moment, according to that measure, this country has a real interest rate of no less than 12 per cent. Without any doubt Australian house owners, Australian business people, Australian farmers, Australian consumers, Australian investors and Australian borrowers are now operating with the highest real interest rates this country has seen since the 1930s. It is little wonder that we hear so little from honourable members opposite about that record achievement of the Hawke Government. We hear a great deal about other things-we hear a great deal about this Government's economic luck; we hear a great number of quotations from people after the mini-Budget; and we hear a great deal of self-adulation-but we hear very little indeed now from either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer on the matter of interest rates. Both of them have become decidedly coy on the subject of interest rates over the last several months. That is little wonder because before the election one could not keep them quiet on the subject of interest rates. They competed with each other to make wild, outlandish predictions about what would happen to interest rates in Australia. On the Sunday program on 4 November last year the Treasurer said: . . . the fact is there is scope, I believe, for further falls in interest rates. On the same program a little later he really got warmed up and into his stride. He said: . . . I'm sure that if, as we get through the tax rundown period of this year, where the market's always a little apprehensive now after the float, of about the capacity of funding the tax rundown period, you'll see declines in interest rates. That was what the Treasurer said on 4 November. I will quote what he said in the House of Representatives when it met on 25 February. Despite the market having pushed up interest rates, he was questioned about his prediction before the election on what would happen to interest rates. What did the Treasurer say on that occasion? He said: I am quite prepared to stand precisely by what I said in the election campaign. I said on that occasion that I accepted the view of most market commentators that there was a further interest rate step fall ahead of us-- I repeat that he said 'a further interest rate step fall ahead of us'- particularly after we get through the tax rundown period. I stand by that. That is what he said on 25 February 1985. On the PM program on 14 March he went on to say: I still stand by the remark I made in the election campaign that I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead for Australia and its interest rate structure generally through 1985. He repeated that affirmation on 20 March in the House of Representatives and as late as 17 April this year when he was asked again about the statement he had made before the election campaign on what would happen to interest rates. What did he say again? He said: I stick to that commitment. They were the words of the Treasurer. As late as 17 April this year he was sticking by the commitment. Yet this is the man who now has added the record of the highest real interest rates in Australia for the last 50 years to his achievement of being the biggest spending, highest taxing Treasurer this country has seen since Federation. It is little wonder that the Treasurer has declined to take part in this debate. Finally, having been overseas, the Treasurer made another remark. It is very interesting that the remark to which I am about to refer was made after the Treasurer had visited New York, after he had participated in a conference on the financial outlook in Australia and after he had talked to people about the attitude of overseas investors to Australia. When the Treasurer came back his tone was markedly different. He had undoubtedly learned a few of the facts of life about the attitude to Australia of international investors. At a Press conference on 29 April 1985 the Treasurer said: . . . there has been, owing to the shift in the exchange rate an unavoidable tightening in conditions in the market and I am not making a prediction about interest rates in the second half of the year. In other words, he had cut and run. The facts of life had been brought home to him in New York. He had been told by the international investors that interest rates in Australia were going to go up in the latter part of 1985 and that, if he valued his credibility and his reputation-to borrow one of his own expressions-he would get out of the cart of predicting future falls in interest rates. We now have a very silent and contrite Treasurer on the subject of interest rates. But I do not mind. There are on the record plenty of quotations he has made over the past few months and of which we will be reminding him during the rest of 1985 and 1986. Dr Harry Edwards —And the Prime Minister also? Mr HOWARD —Let me come to the Prime Minister. My friend from Berowra reminds me of the Prime Minister. If honourable members thought the Treasurer was expansive on the subject of interest rates, they have not heard anything. I remind them of the words of the Prime Minister. He got positively lyrical when he started talking about interest rates. He started off in a fairly sober tone by saying: . . . at present, the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. Can we not see it-the arms uplifted and the ear being twitched-as he said that. Then he went on to say: we will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. That was said to a business luncheon in Adelaide on 20 November 1984. Of course, the best quotation of all came a little later in that speech. This is what he had to say: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. He got even better: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future, we will harvest the crop. It was absolutely marvellous! That is what the Prime Minister said on 20 November. Some harvest! Some crop! A bare six or seven months after that outlandish, deceitful, disgraceful and careless prediction was made by the Prime Minister to try to influence the election result he has landed us with the highest interest level of real interest rates this country has seen since the 1930s. That is certainly some harvest and some crop! I remind the House that, according to a table I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library-monthly economic and social indicators for April 1985-yields on long term government bonds of five years or more in real terms are 8.2 per cent in Australia, 7.6 per cent in the United States, 4.8 per cent in the United Kingdom, 3.8 per cent in Japan and 5 per cent in West Germany. That compares with figures of 7.2 per cent, 8.5 per cent, 5.3 per cent, 5.1 per cent and 5.2 per cent in June 1984. Let me take the House back to February 1983. The real interest then in Australia was 2.8 per cent. In the United States it was 6.9 per cent, in the United Kingdom 5.3 per cent, in Japan 5.5 per cent, and in West Germany 3.5 per cent. It is all very well to say, as undoubtedly the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) will say, that since February 1983 the inflation rate has gone down and that that is why the real interest rate has gone up. In anticipation of that response from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, I would say that in other countries where the inflation rate has come down real interest rates have come down in sympathy. That has not happened in Australia. Indeed, the reverse has happened. I can remember the Treasurer saying that we were the high interest rate specialists. I would have to cede that title totally to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. He is the high interest rate specialist of the last 50 years. The Treasurer has given us real interest rates that would have been undreamt of. High real interest rates have very adverse effects on the outlook of investors in Australia. There may be many domestic savers who think that high real interest rates are a good idea-I suppose that high real interest rates for domestic savers are a good idea-but they are not such a good idea if one is thinking of investing in a business because what they represent is an additional cost and they are a factor which inhibits one from making a business investment. They represent an assessment by many people on international financial markets. I can do no better than borrow the rhetoric of the Treasurer who has said repeatedly over the last few months that now we have a floating exchange rate people overseas will make sharp and instantaneous judgments on us and those judgments will be translated directly into domestic financial and economic conditions in Australia. That is happening in relation to high real interest rates in Australia. The level of interest rates in Australia will stay up for some time. Interest rates will stay up to support the fall that has occurred over the last few months in the value of the Australian dollar. The continued drift in economic policy management, particularly in the wages policy area, the rowing that is going on inside the Government over taxation, the running fight over the reintroduction of university fees and all the other disputes inside the Government are doing absolutely nothing to improve international financial perceptions so far as Australia is concerned. There is certainly a very widespread belief that economic policy in Australia over the last few months has become very rudderless and the previous perception that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had a firm grip on things and were giving a sense of direction and purpose has changed. The fact that real interest rates have gone up so much over the last few months and have so totally discredited, undermined and dishonoured the Prime Minister and the Treasurer's promises is a very sure and certain sign of that. The higher the real interest rate the more risk the financial community sees for Australia's future. The level of real interest rates is very much a barometer of what the world financial community thinks about Australia. It needs higher interest rates in this country in order to invest in Australian dollars and thus insulate itself against potential exchange losses through a downward movement in our currency. The interesting thing to note is that despite the fact that our real interest rates are about one per cent higher than those of the United States, and are significantly higher than those of our major trading partners other than the United States, there is less private capital inflow coming into Australia than there was coming in last year. This may well mean that the rest of the world is not convinced at present that Australia is a good investment, despite the fact that our interest rates have moved higher than they were last year. That could well mean that even further upward movements in the level of our interest rates will be needed to sustain the sorts of levels of private capital inflow that are needed in the face of the very large current account deficit that Australia is running and also, of course, the very significant weakening of the Australian dollar that has occurred over the last few months that has given us the largest depreciation that this country has seen in her currency in the last 30 years. Mr N. A. Brown —And it is going to get worse. Mr HOWARD —It is not a very optimistic picture. As my colleague the honourable member for Menzies says, the situation will get worse. There is no likelihood that the level of real interest rates will be abated in the near future. Even the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have stopped making those foolish predictions that they made before the last election campaign. I remind the House again that the Treasurer stopped predicting falls in interest rates after he had been in New York a couple of weeks ago. No doubt he had his ears pinned back while he was there. He was told by the investors in New York: 'Look, chum, there's no prospect that interest rates in your country will fall. If you want us to put large heaps of money into Australia you will have to make sure that your interest rates stay very high'. So the Treasurer, on his return to Australia, stopped making those foolish predictions. He told the Prime Minister to do likewise. Since then we have seen a very humiliating and significant change of tune. This Treasurer has the distinction of having given Australia the highest level of real interest rates that we have seen since the 1930s. It is not a bad record. It is a record and an achievement which we do not hear a great deal about, but it is a record and an achievement nonetheless. I can assure the House, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that they will be reminded of that contribution to our economic management over the months ahead. They will be reminded of the promises they made so wilfully and deceitfully before the last election. They will be reminded that everything that has happened in the interest rate area since has totally dishonoured and repudiated those reckless, shameful promises that they made before the last election. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.15) —As usual the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has given this House more heat than light. Of course, he has done so in his quest to talk down the Australian economy against our national interests. He has done so in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who is unable to be here today because he is getting on with the excellent work he has done over the last two years to lift the Australian economy from the abysmal depths to which it had sunk, thanks to the work of the coalition Government and, in particular, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who rants and rails today. The first point to be made about this spurious matter of public importance is that it is false to claim that real interest rates are at their highest point for 50 years. I will come back to this and outline just what the interest rate history has been. I admit straight away that real rates of interest are certainly far higher than the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or I would want to see at present. Why is this so? The main reason why real rates of interest are high is that the rate of inflation is low because, indeed, the Government has had success in its campaign against inflation. We have now to be grateful to the Opposition for bringing forward the matter of public importance because it draws to the attention of the Australian Parliament and the Australian people the wonderful success achieved by the Hawke Labor Government in its fight against inflation. Whereas we inherited an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent, we are now, according to the figures for the most recent quarter, that is, to the end of March 1985, enjoying a rate of inflation of 5.3 per cent for the year ended March 1985-a reduction of more than one-half of the inflation rate we inherited from the Liberal-National Party coalition. Yet those Parties have had the gall to propose this matter of public importance to the Parliament today. We now have the opportunity, as a result of that gall, to point out just how successful we have been. I remind the House that the real rate of interest is the difference between the nominal rate and the rate of inflation. If there is a lowering of the rate of inflation, there would be, of course, an increase in the real rate of interest. The challenge is to sustain the low rate of inflation because the nominal rates of interest will come down in the wake of that. What is keeping the nominal rates high at this time? As I have already said, the Government does not think that we should have such high nominal rates of interest. Firstly, there has been a lack of adequate competition in the Australian financial system. Dr Watson —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order- Mr HURFORD —Madam Deputy Speaker, if this is a frivolous point of order, I hope that it will be dealt with properly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Dr Watson —I think the Minister is misleading the House because- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Chair will not entertain these types of points of order, which simply interrupt the speech of the person who has the call from the Chair. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member for Forde may have been here only a few weeks and be very green but he should learn the Standing Orders before he interrupts a speech in such a way. He is a disgrace. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will ignore the interjection and continue. Mr HURFORD —I was explaining what is keeping the nominal rates high. Firstly, there is a lack of adequate competition in the Australian financial system. Frankly, the profits of Australian banks are very high at present. My personal view is that they are too high. I shall point out the latest profit rates for various banks. The Commonwealth Bank's profit for the last year reported compared with that for the year before was up 57.7 per cent. The profit of Westpac Banking Corporation is up 37.7 per cent, the profit of the Australia and, New Zealand Banking Group Ltd is up 35.9 per cent and the profit of the National Australia Bank is up 41.7 per cent. Of course in those figures there is some element of the improved economic conditions. Also we have the fact that the rate of return on shareholders funds for banks is somewhat higher than that recorded by other groups in the economy. This is because there has not been adequate competition in the financial system. Nothing was done by the Liberal and National parties during their 30 years in office to make sure that there is adequate competition in the financial system. We have done something about it; we have arranged for 16 new licences. A far greater efficiency is now likely to result than applied under the Liberal and National Party governments. The second reason why nominal rates are high is the need for relativities in this country with rates in markets overseas. Deregulation has facilitated the flow of funds across borders but our market has to look at rates, say, in the New York capital market. We are doing something about that too. I had the job of representing this country at meetings of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in both Washington and Bangkok during April. I quote what I said for instance, to the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund: Despite a welcome convergence of inflation rates, there has been a pronounced divergence between fiscal policy in the United States and that of several other major countries. The Government dissaving which has taken place in the United States since 1981 has resulted in continued upward pressure on interest rates and the United States dollar, a negative trend in the current account deficit and unprecedented net capital inflows into the United States. The exchange rates of non-dollar currencies have weakened, creating a potential for a revival of inflationary pressures. I went on to point out that this did not help the rest of the world's interest rates because of the need for relativities with the all too-high interest rates in the United States. We are doing something about them; we are having our say in international fora. I was very pleased, when meeting Mr James Baker, the new finance Minister of the Reagan Administration, to learn from him-both in his public utterances and privately-that the United States is addressing that problem. So we are having success there too. The third reason why nominal interest rates are higher than they should be is, of course, inflationary expectation. I know that we have to continue being successful in our fight against inflation in order to bring down inflationary expectations. How more successful can one be than to bring inflation down from the 11.5 per cent that we inherited to the 5.3 per cent that it is now? I will give honourable members one reason why inflationary expectations are not what they ought to be: There are some misinformed people who believe that in three years' time we might have the Liberals back with their discredited wages policy and we should get back to the 11.5 per cent inflation rate. One cannot stop people from being misinformed politically. Of course any informed observer would know that with the wages policy that the Liberal and National parties now have there is not a hope of their returning to government and not a hope of us returning to the sorts of inflation rates that we suffered under their Government. However, there are some misinformed people and that is one of the reasons why inflationary expectations are higher than they ought to be. The Liberal and National parties wages policy would be one for the survival of the fittest. They go into the charade of the market determining wage rates. Certainly we would have the strong unions playing havoc in this country; they would not be party to any wages accord, such as the accord which as been such a marked success in bringing down the rate of inflation in this country. I said earlier that I would return to the level of interest rates and the false claims that have been made about that level by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let me just point out how phoney were his words. He was the high interest rate specialist during 1982. The large overdraft rate then was 17.5 per cent; bank bills were 21 per cent and more, and home loans were 13.5 per cent. In all cases those rates were higher than now. In fact, his matter of public importance is wrong in its title. It is very easy to demonstrate examples where real rates were higher under the Liberals too. In April 1982 bank bills were 21.65 per cent when the consumer price index was 10.6 per cent. Work out the difference there between 21.65 per cent and 10.6 per cent for the real rate of interest. The real rate was more than 11 per cent, which is higher- Mr Howard —That was lower than it is now. Mr HURFORD —It was not lower than it is now; it was higher than it is now. Mr Howard —It is 12 per cent now. Mr HURFORD —It was much higher than today. Bill rates are 15.5 per cent and the CPI is 5.3 per cent; therefore, the real rate is below 11 per cent. It is worth looking at the Government's success in the fight against inflation. I mention the March quarter, in which the CPI rose 1.4 per cent, or an annual rate of 5.3 per cent. Compare this with the previous Government's record. It is worth saying again that in the March quarter 1983 the CPI rose by 2.2 per cent, or an annual rate of 11.5 per cent. Over the 12 months period the average inflation rate in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area as 4.7 per cent. The rate of inflation recorded by Australia's major trading partners was 4.1 per cent. Australia's inflation rate is now running at a rate of about one-half of a percentage point above the OECD average and a little more than one per cent higher than the inflation rate recorded for Australia's major trading partners. We have further to go but, my goodness, it is a much better record than the one we inherited. It is worth looking at what the coalition would do other than run that ruinous wages policy to which I have already referred. The implication of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that he would work on monetary policy. He is always calling for this tightening of monetary policy and demanding a credit squeeze and a return to even higher interest rates. Let us contrast that with what the Government is doing. The Government's monetary policy remains one that is firm and non-inflationary. The M3 target was suspended because aggregates were not providing a reliable guide to money conditions. That is the result of deregulation, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not have the guts to put into effect. The Treasurer acknowledged last Tuesday that financial conditions had firmed recently and that policy had played a part in that firming. The firmer stance for monetary policy will be maintained just as long as it is required. The Deputy Leader made a lot of the claim that the Treasurer had promised lower interest rates. I will read exactly what the Treasurer has said on this subject. He was asked a question during a television program and he responded by saying that, in the conditions that prevail of a seasonal tightening in the second half of the financial year, he agreed with the position of most market commentators that there was a prospect of an interest rate step fall ahead of us. He went on to say, and I quote exactly his words: Now there has been, owing to the shift in the exchange rate an unavoidable tightening in conditions in the market and I am not making a prediction about interest rates in the second half of the year. They are his words, they are credible words, and therefore the House can disregard the claims made about the Treasurer by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of course he said that there is scope for reduction. Surely this House-both sides of it-would agree that there is a scope for reduction. I have mentioned the need for more competition in the financial sector, which of course should bring down nominal rates in the wake of the wonderful success we have had in the reduction in the rate of inflation. For the past 20 months we have had a period of dramatic change in the Australian financial system. In our first term of office the Labor Government took a number of far-reaching steps to dismantle unnecessary regulation of the financial system. These actions have received widespread acclaim, both in Australia and overseas. They will lead to great success in nominal interest rates coming down in the wake of the wonderful success we have had in bringing down the rate of inflation. Of course, bringing down the rate of inflation is not the only economic indicator. Wherever we look, there is a real rate of growth in the economy. If we look at new motor vehicle registrations, at the level of employment or at the level of unemployment, there is a story of success. Even in real private business fixed investment, where we are hoping for even better things shortly, this firm economic management provides the only real route to falls in interest rates in the medium term. Sound economic management is the reason why the Government has been so successful in managing the economy over the last two years. So it is hypocrisy for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to bring a matter of public importance like this before the House today. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(3.30) — Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not canvass one by one the many inaccuracies- Mr Drummond —You wouldn't have time. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I would not have time-or irrelevant statements made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). However, I will pick up two points that he made. Firstly, despite his references in the latter part of his speech to great growth and the level of employment and the great reduction in inflation, the fact remains that real interest rates are currently at their highest level for 50 years. A nominal prime rate of 17 1/2 per cent was quoted the other day. Added to these high interest rates-these factors are not unconnected-we have coming up a record deficit in our balance of payments and we have also had a record depreciation of the exchange rate. All of these things, as I will shown in a moment, are interconnected. The other point that I want to take up is the claim that members on this side of the House are talking down the Australian economy. That is not so. The market and overseas investors have been talking down the Australian economy, as reflected in the big depreciation of the Australian dollar and the high interest rates which in very large part are associated with that depreciation. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), quoted the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this matter. He quoted the Prime Minister as referring to Australians being about to reap the great interest rate rewards that are flowing from the Government's policies. He quoted that magnificent remark: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. That was said just before the election. More characteristically, on 11 April 1985 the Prime Minister said: We nevertheless believe that given the fundamental strengths of the Australian economy and, I think, the increasing perception of the strength of the adherence of the Government to the fiscal management which is embodied in the trilogy, that we can expect through the period of this year there will be, I would expect, a lowering in the level of interest rates. Mr Cadman —Where are his full stops? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Well, the Prime Minister is not prone to the use of full stops. That statement was made on 11 April, and we were still looking forward to lower interest rates. Only about a week later the Prime Minister came into this House and emphasised a true statement-that the Government and this country are living beyond their means, and as my colleague the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) mentioned, the expectations that that situation generates is the great difficulty for policy. Interest rates will remain high and firm while ever the Government's massive Budget deficit continues and while ever such expectations remain that the situation of the economy is delicately balanced and could so easily move into a spiral of increased external deficit, further depreciation of the exchange rate, internal inflation, further deficit in our balance of payments, further devaluation and further inflation. There would be an upward spiral of inflation and a fall in activity. It is that sort of expectation that primarily underlies the record high interest rates. What is the Government's response? First, there was the response of the mini-Budget last week. It was appropriate that the Government should try to respond in that area. In that the massive Budget deficit of the Government is a major contributing factor to the country's 'living beyond its means' it was important that something be done. Headlines such as 'Unconvincing knife work' in the Australian Financial Review and comments such as 'The mini-Budget was about as hard as warm butter and twice as slippery' by Terry McCrann writing in the Age, tell the story. The only point I want to make in that respect is that the Government has not properly addressed the base figures from which we can assess what has been done. We still do not know what the cuts are supposed to be cuts from and, therefore, what they might contribute to achieving the sort of Budget deficit of, say, $5.5 billion, which is necessary if in fact, as I have said, the confidence of overseas investors as well as Australian investors and consumers is to be restored. We talk about 'arms' of economic policy. We have talked about fiscal policy. Monetary policy is another important area to which the Government should address itself. In this area we have a continuing refusal to reinstitute monetary targets and that has very powerful implications for expectations about inflation and, hence, higher interest rates. While it is true that in a context of financial deregulation the meaning of monetary aggregates is not so clear, nevertheless the fact is that the prevailing climate in international markets is that monetary targets are necessary to assess monetary policy performance. If the Government is not going to have anything to do with them, the view is that it is trying to hide something. Unless and until the Government does something in that area also interest rates will continue much higher than they need otherwise be, even in the light of the factors to which I have been referring. The most important, and in many ways, the fundamental aspect about which assessments are being made is the crucial area of wage policy. As I have said, the country is living beyond its means. This is not just a matter of the government. We have, as a result, a massive deficit in the balance of payments, reflecting the tendency of going overseas to meet the demand for goods and services. It is essential that that demand directed overseas be contained. There is the deficit and then there is the devaluation which acts as an automatic corrective if it is allowed to work itself out. It works itself out in terms of reducing living standards, in a temporary way, through the rises in prices-of about 2 to 3 per cent-that it brings about so as to set the scene for living standards to rise again and for sustained growth to be obtained. What do we need for that to be effective? We need for there to be no national adjustment to wages and salaries for that price rise. As has been said, there should be a 'discounting' of the increase in the national wage case. However, apparently the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Government's master, says that discounting for devaluation is not on. I would enter a plea for a different word to be used, if that is so offensive to the trade union movement. The plain fact is, as the Government has acknowledged, that we are in a situation where the country is living beyond its means. In that circumstance the Government, as it has recognised, has to pull in its horns. We get a mini-Budget. I cannot judge how effective it will be. I and many other people have our doubts about its effectiveness. However, the mini-Budget is doing something. But it is not only in that area that the tendency to exceed what the economy can give arises. It also arises from what ordinary consumers and business spend and what the country owes. If we do not have modified adjustment of wages and salaries to counter the devaluation effects, the situation will work itself out in some other way. There is no gain-saying it. It will work itself out in ever-higher inflation and ever-higher unemployment. If the competitiveness of the economy is not restored, the situation will work itself out in higher unemployment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(3.41) —Last night honourable members may have watched the 60 Minutes program which reported on a conference of lay preachers held in Washington. The speech by the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) reminded me of those preachers, who were giving forth with florid rhetoric and little substance. The speeches of both the honourable member for Berowra and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) had no substance to them at all. Members of the Opposition are complaining either on the one hand about our tight monetary policy or, on the other hand, that our inflation level is too high. What is the Opposition putting forward as its solution to the economic problems of the day? It has none. Members of the Opposition talk about their own wonderful record and compare it with ours. I wish to take one reference in order to compare records. Let us compare inflation levels and interest rates. In April 1982 the interest level on bank bills was 21.65 per cent and the consumer price index was 10.6 per cent. According to those figures, the real interest level was 11 per cent. Today, the interest rate on bank bills is 15.5 per cent and the CPI rate of increase is 5.3 per cent. Therefore, the real level of interest rates is 10.2 per cent. So the fundamental basis of the Opposition's whole argument is wrong. Members of the Opposition have accused the Government of having the highest interest level in the last 50 years. From that one example in April 1982 figures, comparing bank bill interest rates as at April 1982 and today, it is quite clear that our real interest level is lower. It is very difficult, however, to measure real interest rates. It is very simplistic simply to measure them by dividing current rates by inflation levels but, as I have said, even if we take that as the premise for working out the real level of interest rates, we can still prove that interest levels today are not as high as they were under the previous Government's administration. All this talk about figures really boils down to the one bottom line-the impact of inflation levels and interest rates on the level of economic activity. The truth of the matter is that the economy has never been stronger than it is today. There is growth in consumption, spending and investment. The latest national accounts confirm the economic recovery. The Budget estimate of non-farm gross domestic product in 1984-85 is 5 per cent. The forecast is that those figures are on target. The December quarter national accounts show non-farm growth of 1.4 per cent and GDP growth of 1.2 per cent. Consumer confidence and spending are up. Retail sales rose by 2.6 per cent in the March quarter to a level 8.9 per cent higher than in the March quarter of 1984. I take another simple indicator-car registrations. In the March quarter of 1985 they were at their highest level of 726,128 vehicles. But the real litmus test in relation to increases in interest rates lies in the housing industry. Dwelling commencements went up by 30.5 per cent in 1983-84. In 1983-84 the number of finance approvals for new dwellings rose by 39.5 per cent after six years of decline. That is the Opposition's record. That is the economic record that honourable members opposite were talking about so proudly. Why is there such a boom in the housing industry? It is because we have made finance readily available because the first home owners scheme is such a success and generally because of improvements in economic conditions. What is the Opposition's alternative? Is it to hark back to the days of the Fraser Government with harsh monetary policies, economic activity forced down and depression? Is that what honourable members opposite are talking about? They have not given us any alternative at all in this debate. The bottom line on all the figures that have been thrown around this House during this discussion is the level of economic activity. It is clear that economic activity is on the increase, that the figures indicate growth and confidence in the economy. I refer to comments made by the business sector itself about the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Tuesday night. I repeat for members of the Opposition some of those statements reported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Parliament on 15 May. Mr White of the Business Council of Australia said: The Council strongly supports the early indication of a firm direction to fiscal policy in 1985-86 embodied in the Treasurer's statement today . . . The fact that the Government has exceeded its target of $1 billion in expenditure reductions is evidence of its determination to succeed in the task of restraint for 1985-86. Sir Arvi Parbo, speaking on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said: Well, I thought the general thrust of what the Government is trying to do and what the Treasurer was saying was most welcome . . . I think it is going to be seen as a good beginning. Mr Ken Court, the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, had this to say: The Federal Government's economic statement is a positive and constructive first step in a longer term program of expenditure reduction and reform at both the Federal and State Government levels. The economic statement in many respects amounts to a concerted first attack on waste and inefficiency in Federal public spending. This is to be warmly applauded. I could go on. So when it comes to the bottom line there is public confidence in the economy. Everybody in Australia except members of the Opposition has confidence in it. The Opposition members' assertions are false. Their records speak for themselves. In 1982 the level of home loan interest rates was 13.5 per cent, the interest rate on bank bills was 21 per cent or more and the rate on the largest overdrafts was 17.5 per cent-all higher than today's interest rates. The current interest levels are based on a number of desirable conditions. The Government has a firm monetary policy accompanied by a firm fiscal policy, support for the exchange rate and strong growth in the economy in both consumption spending and investment. The Opposition's alternative is to return to monetarism-a credit squeeze and high interest rates. That is what this country will be looking at if it ever returns the Opposition parties to government. There is a clear difference between the policies of the Opposition and the Government. The Government is getting the results. The economy is sound, employment growth is up and confidence is high. The Opposition has no alternative policy except a return to the harsh monetary policy of the Fraser years and an increase in interest rates. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The discussion is concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the augmentation of the taxiway system at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the phosphate fertiliser subsidy schemes at current rates for a further 12 months until 30 June 1986. The two fertiliser assistance schemes were introduced in the mid-1960s as a means to stimulate agricultural production and have been extended with some modification on several occasions since that time. They were due to expire on 30 June 1985. In July 1984, the Government asked the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into and report on whether assistance should be provided for the consumption and production of fertilisers in Australia and, if so, the nature, extent and the duration of such assistance. The Commission, in an interim report submitted to the Government in March 1985, recommended against continuation of the current subsidies for consumption of nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers after 30 June 1985 and recommended that short term assistance be provided to local phosphatic fertiliser manufacturers. The Government has rejected these recommendations. In deciding to continue the fertiliser consumption subsidies for further 12 months, the Government was particularly mindful of its request that the IAC consider in its final report, firstly, the current levels of assistance to industries within the farm sector, relative to levels of assistance to other industries and the Government's commitment to maintain and improve the international competitiveness of Australian rural industries; and, secondly, the effectiveness of the nitrogenous and phosphatic fertiliser subsidies, or any other approaches which it considers would be appropriate, in assisting industries within the rural sector. The fertilisers subsidies are the single largest item of Commonwealth Government assistance to industries in the rural sector. In 1984-85 they are expected to cost the Commonwealth some $55.3m. Nevertheless, the overall level of assistance to rural industries is low by comparison with other sectors. A comparison of figures for 1981-82, the latest year for which comparable IAC figures are available, indicates that primary industry assistance is 9 per cent compared to 26 per cent for secondary industries. In recent discussions on farm costs the Government has agreed with the National Farmers Federation that the farm sector does suffer a cost impost arising from protection of secondary industry by tariffs, quotas and other mechanisms, and while there has not been agreement on the extent of this cost impost it is in the order of $6,000 to $9,000 per farm each year. This is significant given that average income per unit of family farm labour in 1983-84 has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at only $7,000 per year. The Government has been actively working on measures for industries in the rural sector which will maintain and enhance their productivity. Some changes have been necessary, an inevitable adjustment given the entrenched protective position into which some industries have withdrawn, but most important for their future efficiency and competitiveness. Our rural industries continue to provide about 40 per cent of export earnings, a most important contribution to the national economy and reason enough for the Government to maintain a reasonable balance between the assistance it provides to respective sectors of industry and the community generally. There has been much debate on the effectiveness of the fertiliser consumption subsidies as an assistance measure for the rural sector and this is reflected in the Commission's interim report. Given the terms of reference the IAC has for this inquiry, the Government expects to be in a better position to consider the options including their continuation or their replacement by other measures following receipt of the final report which is due in October. The subsidy rates to continue in 1985-86 will be paid at the rate of $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen and $12 per tonne of single strength superphosphate or $138 per tonne on the available phosphorus content of other phosphatic fertilisers. The measure is expected to cost the Government about $55m in 1985-86. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Mr Shipton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that- (1) ownership of the Uluru National Park is vested in the Northern Territory, subject to an adequate and appropriate area of freehold land being available for living areas for the Aboriginal community, and (2) the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council shall not come into effect until approved by the Parliament'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(3.55) —It is my privilege to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the cognate Bill, having returned from the dreamtime of the heavy sittings of the Labor Government last week, proceedings on this legislation having been adjourned at 3 o'clock on Friday morning. No doubt by then most Aborigines would have been asleep around their campfires. Mr Humphreys —What about the cockies? Mr IAN CAMERON —Most of the cockies were, too. This is most important legislation. I believe that it is sad for Australia to be handing a national park back to the Aborigines. I believe that there is more than sufficient land in that part of Australia to cope with any land claims that may have been put in. Under the 1976 Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Act it was not possible for these Aborigines to make claims, and that is why the legislation has to be altered. The 1976 land rights legislation has to be amended to allow the Aborigines to take this course. Under the previous Act Aborigines could not make claim to national parks, and nor should they be able to. No other Australian is given that privilege. I do not believe that because one is an Aboriginal one ought to be able to put in a claim for a national park wherever it may be, State or Commonwealth. It always amuses me how the greenies make such a hue and cry about the State Government of Tasmania wanting to build a dam in Tasmania. I have not seen the same sort of activity being carried on by any conservation groups in Australia against this national park being handed back to a group of Australians. I also note with interest that the only other national park in the true sense, a Commonwealth national park, is in Canberra. I wait with interest the day when the Aborigines put in a claim for that national park. I imagine the people of Canberra will not be very keen to hand that back to the Aborigines. I believe that Namdadgi National Park on the Cotter River is the only national park in Australia that is controlled by the Commonwealth. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in his second reading speech said that the Kakadu National Park is of similar nature. But that is not the case because Kakadu was not in existence prior to the 1976 Land Rights Act. It has been built up since that time and handed back to the Aborigines. I am of the same opinion about that piece of land. I believe that as a national park, and as a national park which the Commonwealth Government has seen fit to place on the World Heritage List, it should be owned by all Australians, administered by the Government of the Northern Territory and not just owned by a few. It is interesting to note that not only is Ayers Rock included in the park but so are the Olgas. Most of us, I imagine, have been to that part of the world. One travels many hundreds of miles across flat, featureless plains and comes upon the false rock-Mount Connor-first of all. Many people think it is Ayers Rock. Ayers Rock is a majestic, interesting place with lots of sandhills and beautiful oaks and the area is mystic to all of us, not just the Aborigines. Mr Slipper —The Labor Party believes it is no longer part of Australia. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true that the Labor Party has unfortunately handed it back to a group of people called the Mititjula group with whom the discussions took place. It is interesting to note that it has always been associated with the Docker River and other Aboriginal holdings. Once upon a time they were cattle stations. They are now run down and no production takes place on any of these cattle stations in that part of the world. In fact, the Federal Government is paying to have cattle slaughtered on a cattle station which is half way between Alice Springs and the Rock. A small meatworks has been set up there. Twenty or 30 head of cattle are slaughtered every couple of days and flown to the Aboriginal settlements. Those are the sorts of regressive moves we are making in relation to Aborigines. Only 10 or 15 years ago Docker River station ran 20,000 head of cattle. It now does not run a hoof. They have all been eaten or let starve. Obviously, the Aboriginal people who have been coming and going around the Rock claim that they are the owners. But in fact the area was named after Maggie Springs, a Yunkantjatjance name. These people come from near Ayers Rock. The Yunkantjatjance group is not the only group with a special interest in the Rock. Many groups of Aborigines are interested. The Government has negotiated with not just the Yunkantjatjance group. Most Australians are not in favour of the Rock being handed back to the Aborigines. Any poll one likes to take will show that 70 per cent of Australians do not want the Rock handed back. This has been one of the turning points which has fortunately created some sort of a backlash. Let us hope that some sanity will prevail from this socialist Labor Government's proposed national land rights legislation, which is a total farce. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is sitting at the table. Mr Tim Fischer —Fresh from New York. Mr IAN CAMERON —Fresh from New York or fresh from Indian reserves. I do not know what they have to do with Australia. The Minister seems to have enjoyed travelling around that part of the world and coming back here and making all sorts of statements about mineral rights, et cetera. I was at Charleville on the weekend. My mate Sugar Ray Robinson is a resident of Charleville. He represents the great area of Maranoa on the National Aboriginal Conference. He gets a motor car to drive. Sugar came out with a great statement and I support him 100 per cent. I think it is the only sensible thing he has said: He said that Ayers Rock ought to be handed back to all Australians. Mr Hand —Charming! A real charmer. Mr IAN CAMERON —I say to the honourable member for Melbourne that I support that. The honourable member is the very good former Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I have been able to well educate him in Aboriginal affairs since he has been Chairman of the Committee. The honourable member comes from the middle of Melbourne. We have had many good and interesting educational trips. We have been to these areas. I guess we do our best to try to help the Aboriginal people. The land rights movement and the backlash it has created are not helping the Aborigines at all. Sugar lives in my electorate of Maranoa and he has come out with this big statement. The Minister has just disbanded the National Aboriginal Conference, so poor old Sugar is clean out of a job. He does not have a motor car, a job or an office. He will have to give up his telex machine which he has in his office in Charleville. Mr Nehl —Do you have a telex? Mr IAN CAMERON —No, I do not have a telex. But Sugar has one and he has to give that up. So I am feeling a bit sorry for these people. But that is the way this Government has been treating Aborigines. It fills them with promises and then withdraws all the jobs, telex machines, motor cars-the lot. We have heard motor cars mentioned in this place before. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has come to the table. When I was in Charleville we had a big meeting with all the kangaroo shooters. Many Aboriginal people are employed in the roo industry. I must praise the Minister because he has agreed to meet with the shooters and, hopefully, with some people from the National Parks and Wildlife Service in Queensland. He will see whether we cannot sort out some of the problems with the quotas on kangaroos. Mr Hunt —Hear, hear! I hope he bashes some sense into some people. Mr IAN CAMERON —I say to the honourable member for Gwydir that 250 shooters turned up. Of course, I suppose they would have liked to lynch the Minister. But I stepped in and saved his neck. I agreed to talk to the Minister, which I have already done. He has agreed to meet one of these people who represents many Aboriginal people in that part of the world who exist by shooting kangaroos. As the Minister has said, unfortunately they developed roo shooting into an industry which earned them a living. Of course, if one takes away that living they bitterly complain about it. One cannot blame them for that. I return to Ayers Rock. There are a lot of roos around Ayers Rock, too. Many Aborigines sit around there and try to make a go of things. The whole situation is pretty hopeless in one sense. We have supposedly handed back the Rock, set up a committee and agreed to pay rent. The people of Australia will pay $75,000 in rent. The Aborigines will get 20 per cent of the gate takings, so to speak. But the Government still has agreed to pay the expenses of the committee and I guess that includes the Aborigines. I often say that I believe we ought to leave these people alone. If we are going to hand back the Rock, which I am opposed to, I believe that the Aborigines ought to be left alone entirely to see whether they cannot manage their own affairs. One can be dead sure that these people will not have their pensions and benefits assets tested. That is another thing I speak out very strongly against. I believe that all these handouts to Aborigines ought to be means tested. One can be dead sure that these people have been given the park and 20 per cent of the gate takings, but one can be sure that they will not be means tested and that they will continue to wait for payday every Friday when they get the dole cheque. Mr Hand —Come on! Mr IAN CAMERON —That is true, and the honourable member for Melbourne knows that. He knows that that is how the system operates. Stations have been set up there. Every day aeroplanes fly meat to these people. The whole thing has degenerated into a hopeless state. The more money we give them the worse it gets. The Minister knows that. He has talked to the NAC representatives. He has had the Australian Federal Police into the NAC office to inquire into the goings on. Of course, we have not heard anything about that. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. A whole range of issues has been raised in the last couple of minutes. They have no relevance to the Bill whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that we are debating two Bills cognately. One of those is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the other is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. Mr Cohen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to the point of order. I believe that the honourable member was correct in that the honourable member for Maranoa has raised a number of issues which are totally irrelevant to these Bills. Whilst I am interested in his views on kangaroo shooting, they do not have a lot to do with Ayers Rock. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Maranoa has made the link between the national parks and wildlife conservation issue and has referred to Aborigines who rely on rural activities. I think he has made the connection. I call the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, there are many kangaroos around Ayers Rock. I have mentioned that fact. No doubt the Aborigines still depend on them for meat. Sometimes they go out and get the odd roo. They have a bit of a chew on the kangaroo. They are tough eating, but they are not bad. The honourable member for Melbourne has never eaten kangaroo. He would not know what they taste like. I still have to educate him. He has been a good Chairman. I am disappointed that he is taking points of order; he still needs educating. Do not worry; I will have done that by the time I have finished with him. We have also had the Premier of Queensland-the great Joh-and the Leader of the National Party in Queensland support Sugar. When Sugar made this great statement about Ayers Rock being given to all the people of Australia, the Premier of Queensland made this statement: We are still seeking entirely separate rights and privileges for those available to other people in Australia. I am interested in equal rights, not land rights. I think that is a perfectly good statement by the Premier of Queensland. We have a very good record with Aboriginal people in Queensland. No other State in Australia does more for the Aborigines than Queensland. Mr Holding —You had better ask them that. Mr Ian CAMERON —The Minister knows that. Wherever he has travelled-- Mr Cohen —You have the same record with them as you have with kangaroos. Mr Ian CAMERON —I expect the Minister to give us an increase in that kangaroo quota. When he comes to Queensland I will take him to Charleville. He will meet all these Aboriginal shooters and he will give them an increase in the quota because there is a heap of roos in Queensland. The last couple of winters we have had have been excellent seasons and the roos have really multiplied in number. Before I conclude I would like to refer to the preferred national land rights model. It is about the tenth model the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has put out. No doubt the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) had a hand in writing this. He is still endeavouring to get some sort of national land rights model. I believe that he should forget it. While I am on my feet I point out that the other day I very strongly made the point to members of the Department that I expect them to make sure that any pastoral leases which expire are renewed and that claims are not allowed to be made in respect of them. Another thing to which I am opposed is pastoral excursions. In the Northern Territory, around Ayers Rock and in other places Aborigines are being allowed, under the new national land rights Act, to make claims for excursions into pastoral holdings. I believe that all that will do is decentralise the stations, making it harder for management to operate the stations, and make it much more expensive for us in government to do something for the Aboriginal people. That is all I have to say on these two Bills. I support the Opposition's proposed amendments and reserve my right to speak at the Committee stage. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(4.12) —We have heard from honourable members opposite a great deal of heat but not a great deal of enlightenment in this debate so far. I concur with the comments of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) when he said that the speech that we just heard was full of irrelevancies. I think, as well, that it was insulting to the Aboriginal community at large. In addition, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) tried in his speech to inflame the House with some fiery rhetoric, included in which was a statement that a ban had been placed on photography at Ayers Rock. If the honourable member were more aware of his shadow portfolio he would know that regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act require a permit to be issued before commercial filming is carried out. Applications for permits are assessed against a set of guidelines agreed between the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, the traditional owners, Northern Territory Government agencies and other interested bodies. It is true that problems arise when film crews are insensitive in their actions or fail to adhere to conditions of approval for their activities. One must say, in regard to that, that the greater percentage, the majority, of applications for commercial filming have proceeded smoothly, although there have been one or two unfortunate incidents when those filming have not paid regard to the sensitivities of the Aboriginals in the area. There has been an Aboriginal presence in the area for thousands of years. It was in 1920 that the Petermann Aboriginal reserve was established for the protection of Aboriginals inhabiting the area in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. In 1958 the land now forming the Uluru National Park was excised from the Petermann reserve. I remind the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who made references to that aspect, that that event is historically important. Had that land not been excised from the reserve, it would have been included in Schedule 1 of the Act, as was the case with other reserves, and consequently granted with the remainder of the land in that reserve in 1978. There can be no doubt as to the significance of that area not only to those persons directly descended from the original inhabitants but to Aboriginal people generally, and to the wider Australian population, as well as to visitors from overseas. Mr Justice Toohey, the then Aboriginal Land Commissioner, in his report on the Uluru National Park commented: Both Uluru and Katatjuta are of enormous significance not only for the local descent groups immediately responsible for them but for the claimants generally and for a wider range of Aboriginal people. He went on to say: . . . so many witnesses spoke about the significance of both places. The attachment of all Aboriginal witnesses was obvious. He meant the attachment they had to the land. It is clear that those people living in that area have strong traditional ties. They live according to traditional standards of government based on consensus and group consultation. There are 23 sites of significance to Aboriginal people at Uluru and eight at Katatjuta. The importance of these sites and of the area generally is reflected in the perseverance with which the Aboriginal people have pursued the land claim over the past few years. It is because this Government recognises the just and legitimate claims of the dispossessed people of Uluru and Katatjuta that it is proposing this amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. At the same time, this Bill recognises the importance of these areas to the Australian people as a whole and, despite the bogus fears of some honourable members opposite, allows for continued access to the area by all Australians. The Aboriginal people themselves acknowledge the importance of the area to Australians generally and have agreed to maintain the area as a national park on the proposed basis of a 99-year lease to be administered by an 11-member board of management. This board will comprise six Aboriginal representatives nominated by the local community, two members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, a nominee from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, a nominee from the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. In addition, it is proposed that an annual rental of $75,000 plus 20 per cent of the entrance fees be paid. The recognition of traditional Aboriginal ownership in the management of park areas is not a new concept-not even for the Northern Territory. Despite the misleading information given by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), there are two examples in the Northern Territory where title has been transferred to the traditional owners. The Kakadu National Park is one; the Cobourg Peninsula is another. The traditional owners of Kakadu have in turn leased the park back to the Government for the purposes of maintaining and operating the national park. This has proved to be a most successful partnership. It gives the lie to those who said that it would not work. There is no reason why the current proposal should be any less successful. I draw the attention of the House to another example which was enacted in legislation by the Northern Territory Government in 1981. The Cobourg Peninsula area is held under freehold title by the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on the basis that it be used as a national park. Given that both of these examples-Kakadu and the Cobourg Peninsula-were introduced by the Opposition when in government and the Northern Territory Government, under the man who is now the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) respectively- Mr Hand —Why have they changed their minds? Mr BLANCHARD —We do not know. I think the only answer is 'political opportunism'. That is the only rationale for their action. It would seem reasonable to assume that the Opposition should support the current amendment. Further evidence to support this assumption can be gleaned from a speech in July 1982 to the National Press Club by the honourable member for the Northern Territory when he was Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. At that time his intentions in respect of Uluru National Park were crystal clear. They are less than crystal clear today. He said: The Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mount Olga, and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a National Park. What is his attitude now? I will wait with interest to hear his speech on this Bill. Finally, the granting of title to the Uluru-Kakatjuta Aboriginal Land Trust is consistent with this Government's preferred model on land rights. This proposal is a serious attempt by the Government to redress the injustices suffered by the people of Uluru-Katatjuta while preserving access for all Australians and for those overseas visitors who wish to see this unique and remarkably beautiful area of Australia. I support the Bill before the House. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(4.21) —We have before us legislation which will set the seal on the fate of this Government. Throughout Australia people are watching the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and they are angry, justifiably angry, that this Government is about to give away the best known and best loved symbol of our Australian heritage in a tradeoff to its left wing. Ayers Rock does not belong to this Government. It is not the Government's to give away. Ayers Rock belongs to all the people of Australia. It cannot be bartered in the political market-place of factional trade off. Australians will resist that, whether this legislation passes or not. Do not be deflected by the red herring of Cobourg Peninsula National Park. If the Northern Territory Government had not come to an agreement with the Aboriginals at Cobourg we would have lost it altogether. All Northern Territory national parks are under claim. The Northern Territory has always opposed that situation. In the case of the Katherine Gorge National Park, it has opposed the land claim. In the case of Cobourg, we were advised that there was no chance of success and, therefore, negotiations took place to perpetuate the state of national park. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) says that 'Ayers Rock is of great cultural significance to the Aboriginal people'. Of course it is, but it is also of great cultural significance to all Australians. White Australians are not culturally deprived. Ayers Rock is their heritage. It is Australia, just as are the Blue Mountains, the Great Barrier Reef and Sydney Harbour. All Australia is of great cultural significance to Aboriginals, as it is to all Australians. Shall we give it away? We had better not. It is our land. We cannot turn the clock back. We are all Australians together. The Minister says that while Ayers Rock is of great cultural significance to Aboriginals it has also become 'a magnetic attraction for tourists from within Australia and overseas'. Here we see how this Government thinks. Under the philosophy of this legislation non-Aboriginal Australians are viewed by the Government only as tourists. The Australian people will answer that. They will answer it with the anger of a people whose trust has been betrayed. I want to quote from just one of hundreds of letters that have been printed in the nation's media since the decision to hand over Ayers Rock to the Mutitjulu community was announced. A letter published in the Australian of 27 March 1985 stated: I never realised that Ayers Rock meant so much to me until confronted with the news that absolute title to this natural wonder is shortly to be given to a small community of Aboriginal Australians. I felt that sudden sense of shock, then grief, that comes when you are about to lose something very precious, previously taken for granted, the true value of which does not become apparent until after it has gone forever . . . The stroke of the pen that will allow people to physically possess the spiritual heart of this nation is a knife thrust that wounds every Australian. I am sure that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) have hundreds, if not thousands, of similar letters on their files. If the Ministers have bothered to read them they must know what an irony the ministerial title, Arts, Heritage and the Environment, is today. The Minister has, in introducing the Bill, abrogated his responsibility to represent the interests of Australian art, Australian heritage and the Australian environment. He should be ashamed of himself for carrying out the bidding of the breast-beating Left of his Party. I know what the Minister will say. He will seek to defend his action by siting my decision to accept that recognition of Aboriginal title to Uluru would have to form part of a negotiating package between the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory Government and land councils on changes to the Northern Territory land rights legislation. I reluctantly made that commitment because it seemed that it was the only way to attempt to salvage the interests of territorians, squeezed between the demands of the land councils, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Services and the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory position has long been that Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park should be vest in the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, but our top priority was to secure amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and it still is. On 28 July 1982 I put forward a 10-point package to attempt to resolve the problem that afflicted the territory. I seek leave to table a speech made by me which was referred to by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). Leave granted. Mr EVERINGHAM —As a result of the legislation there was to be a tradeoff by both sides, but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, almost immediately on assuming office, forgot about reconciliation and consensus and threw the 10-point package out the window. In November 1983 this Government, without any prior consultation with the Northern Territory, announced its sell-out of Ayres Rock. I have always believed that Ayres Rock belongs to all the people of Australia, and I know that the people of Australia believe that. I will deal briefly with some of the details of this issue, but honourable members opposite should not be too distracted by these details. The only real matter for them to keep uppermost in their minds is that if they support the give away of Ayers Rock they vote against the wishes and interests of the people of Australia. They should keep that in mind and remember it when they are soundly defeated at the next election and are wondering how it happened. The Minister has said that the House 'is in the fortunate position of having a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory here to speak on this issue'. It is most fortunate that I am here to put the record straight, otherwise honourable members might be misled by the subtle and devious strategems adopted by the Minister in his second reading speech. The Minister has sought to identify himself with the Yulara tourist facilities that have given Ayers Rock its rightful place at the very centre of Australian tourism growth. After stating how he first became actively involved in the area in the late 1960s, he continued by reading a selective history of events concerning Uluru. To listen to the Minister, one could be forgiven for thinking that it was because he became actively involved that the $150m Yulara development now stands near Uluru. The facts are that during umpteen years of Commonwealth control of Uluru, there were hundreds of pages of totally predictable reports on the need to protect Uluru environmentally and to promote tourism to the area. That was the result on paper. On the ground things were somewhat different. A motely group of prefabricated buildings sprang up at the ecologically least desirable base of the rock, providing inadequate tourist accommodation and an environmental eyesore on the landscape. That was what the Northern Territory inherited from the Commonwealth at self-government-pages and pages of reports and a township of shanty hotels to which the Aboriginals were attracted. Again I refer to the letter I tabled in this House earlier this year from Mr William H. Liddle dated 14 September 1947. That is hard evidence that no Aboriginal lived at Ayers Rock. I should add that I attach no blame to the pioneer operators of those hotel facilities. They struggled to provide some facilities in the face of a lack of any power, water, sewerage and road infrastructure, no secure title, and neglect and inaction from the powers that be. The Northern Territory made environmental protection of Uluru and international class tourism facilities a top priority of the early self-governing years. We put together the necessary financial package. We involved a world-wide hotel chain. We provided what the Commonwealth had been unable to provide in years of committee meetings and reports. Mr Cohen —With Commonwealth money. Mr EVERINGHAM —Baloney. Not a cent; not a cracker. Mr Cohen —It was part of the settlement that you were set up with. Mr EVERINGHAM —Not a cent. The money is borrowed. Mr Cohen —Why don't you tell the truth for once in your life? Mr EVERINGHAM —Why does the Minister not find out some facts? The Minister's attempt to shift credit for this enterprise to his Government is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia. This history of neglect and inaction from the Commonwealth authority continues. For years now the Northern Territory has been trying to wrest control of Uluru and Kakadu national parks from the dead hand of the ANPWS empire. Even in the Australian Capital Territory the Government will not let the ANPWS control its national park; only in the Northern Territory is that wasteful and unnecessary empire let off the leash. If the Government wants to save money let it wind up the ANPWS because, as honourable members may have noticed, the Service cannot even eradicate the feral cats in the parking lot at the back of this Parliament House. I will give the very briefest resume of ANPWS inactivities in administering the plan of management for Uluru National Park, which this House approved to come into effect on 22 September 1983. The plan says that the Director: . . . shall perform his functions and exercise his powers . . . in accordance with the plan and not otherwise. This is a requirement of the Commonwealth's Act. Yet, the Minister, by his refusal to delegate authority, by his failure to act, has frustrated and hindered the expressed wish of this Parliament. The Minister is responsible for the inaction of his officers. I ask him to explain to this House why, when we are nearly half way through the life of the plan, the most important single first step the establishment of the Uluru aboriginal advisory committee-has not taken place. In more than 20 months since the plan took effect, the most basic arrangements have not been put in place. I will save the Minister the trouble of responding. It is simply because Canberra head office will not stomach any divesting of power from its own immediate control. An Aboriginal advisory committee might have short-circuited this. These decisions are not small ones. They include such matters as plans for the preservation of sites of significance, plans for the control of dogs, plans for the control of fires and soil erosion-all paramount matters concerning the environment protection of Uluru. The Minister has given this House no assurance on such matters, although he has announced a new plan of management for the park to come into effect 'when the present plan expires in 1987, or beforehand, if the new plan is ready'. Will the Minister explain what action he proposes to ensure that the existing plan of management will be carried out as this House has directed? When will the existing plan of management be carried out? Members of the media and members of the public are well aware that to date several international and national media organisations have been forbidden to film and photograph Ayers Rock since this Government announced the great give-away. I have detailed these events before. The Herald newspaper and a British Broadcasting Corporation film crew, amongst others, have been told that they may not photograph Australia's Ayers Rock. Mr Shipton —Paul Hogan. Mr EVERINGHAM —The shadow Minister has reminded me about Paul Hogan who sat out there while the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) rang me to see what I could do to get permission for him to film at Ayers Rock. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has given no assurance other than to say: There is nothing to suggest that the scheme proposed will not operate to the advantage of Aboriginals and all Australians alike. He said that there will be no selective and irrational bans placed on the rock in the future. I understand, and it is significant that I must gain this information from sources in the Northern Territory rather than from the Minister, that negotiations for the give-away include a requirement from the Aboriginal owners that they will not deny access. If this is true the Minister is easily fooled because such assurances have been given before. We have seen the extent to which they have been followed. Indeed, one need not wonder why. I quote from Mr Justice Woodward's second report: One of the most important proofs of genuine Aboriginal ownership of land will be the right to exclude from it those who are not welcome. What will this assurance be worth when the crunch comes? One of the Aborigines' advisers is already on record as having said that the park may have to be closed for upwards of a day at a time. What sort of havoc will that play with our international tourist industry? Time is running out and there is much more I would like to say. However, there is one issue only on which this House needs to focus its collective mind. Ayers Rock is indeed a great tourist attraction. However, to all Australians-I emphasise all Australians-it is more than that. It is an awesome geological feature-the largest monolith in the world. But to the Australian people it is more than that. It is a symbol of strength. But to Australians it is more than that. It has been an inspiration to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal artists; it is an inspiration to all Australians. But it is more than that. It is at the heart of our great country, a cultural and spiritual symbol to all who call themselves Australians. If this legislation is passed the Hawke Government will be remembered for this act-the hand-over of Australia's best-known, best-loved, cultural and spiritual symbol to a small group in the community. This Government will be remembered for it. It will be cursed for it. At the next election it will be damned for it. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.36) —It is regrettable that on an issue as important as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) should follow other speakers in using terms such as 'give away Ayers Rock', and talk about its spiritual significance to all Australians. Of course, it is of significance to all Australians. What is the Government doing in terms of this legislation? It is bringing to finality a series of discussions and negotiations that have been going on for almost a decade and which were begun during that period of the Fraser Government. The Bill in essence does one thing, and one thing only; it recognises the pre-existing ownership and the spiritual significance of Ayers Rock to our Aboriginal citizens. Mr Ian Cameron —Which ones? Mr HOLDING —Of course, we have heard from my colleague the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who has said that there may be some doubt as to whether one can recognise the traditional Aboriginal owners. What is the authority for that proposition? The authority is one Aboriginal person by the name of Mr Liddle. The shadow Minister and other honourable members opposite of course have not bothered to look at the investigations carried out by Mr Justice Toohey when he was investigating the relationship of Aboriginal people to Ayers Rock. He not only emphasised its spiritual significance, he recognised a very large number of traditional owners. He recognised 104 traditional owners and another group of 57. Mr Shipton —But you are not giving it to them. Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman has said that I am not giving it to them. I ask the honourable gentleman who his sole authority is. Did Mr Liddle give evidence to Mr Justice Toohey? Of course, he did not. Mr Liddle just happens to be the so-called authority who advises the honourable gentleman opposite. It is no accident that he just happens to be the Chairman of the Liberal-National Party in Alice Springs. He is a token Aboriginal. Mr Shipton —That's disgraceful. Mr HOLDING —I have had a gutful of the honourable member and Mr Liddle. Let us be clear about it: On the basis of being promised political preferment, Mr Liddle will say anything to demean Aboriginal people and their claims. Let me quote the authority that the honourable member relies on. Mr Liddle is reported as having said of himself when giving advice to his daughter: I used to be nice and never got anywhere; now I'm a ruthless bastard and making heaps of money. That is the authority that is brought into this House on the basis of contesting the legitimate claims and hopes of Aboriginal people. The honourable member will have to do better than that. The honourable member should look at the judgment of Mr Justice Toohey which clearly recognises the traditional relationship, the traditional owners and their rights in respect of this. Of course, we heard the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who for some years was the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. For most of the period when the Fraser Government was in office considerable negotiations went on, during almost the entire history of that Government, to determine the relationship between Aboriginal people, the Northern Territory Government and the Federal Government. To hear honourable gentlemen opposite one would think that somehow or other the decision made by the Government and contained in this legislation was dragged out of the hat, that it was a decision taken in a political vacuum without any regard to the negotiations and discussions that have preceded it. It is all very well for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to say that we must not quote him out of context, that we must not misunderstand what he was about. On 13 February 1980, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, what was the position of the then Chief Minister, the present honourable member for the Northern Territory? He said: The Northern Territory Government has been attempting to negotiate with the Aboriginal people through the Central Land Council in respect of the Uluru National Park exactly the same arrangements-- honourable members should listen to this- for the last 12 months as we are now negotiating with the Northern Land Council with respect to the Cobourg Peninsula. If we were to believe the honourable member for the Northern Territory now, on what basis would he be negotiating with the Central Land Council? On 13 February 1980, did this honourable gentleman believe, as he said in the House today, that the Rock is of such special significance to all Australians that there is no basis upon which one could possibly recognise any claim from Aboriginal people? If that is the case now, how is it that on 13 February 1980, as Chief Minister, the honourable member engaged in detailed negotiations? To do what? Virtually to recognise the title of the Aboriginal people and create a board of management upon which they would have a majority. That is exactly the situation that was created by the Government of the honourable member for the Northern Territory in respect of the Cobourg Peninsula. It is no good his coming in here and saying: 'We had no choice in respect of Cobourg'. What was his choice in respect of Uluru at that time? It is no good his coming in here and talking about conceding the position to the breast-beating Left. Is that an adequate description of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser? There were endless discussion in respect of this matter by the former Prime Minister. At that stage, as honourable members opposite know, the argument that was being advanced by the Northern Territory Government was not an argument against giving Aboriginal people title; it was an argument about the Northern Territory Government wanting to give them Northern Territory title. That is what it was about and the record shows that that was the position which was arrived at on 16 April 1982. There was a whole series of discussions. No fewer than three former Federal Liberal Ministers-Mr Viner, Senator Peter Baume and Mr Wilson-were involved at various stages in detailed negotiations. Honourable members should ask themselves the very simple question: Why would they need to negotiate? Why should they be involved if the argument were as simple as the argument we have had put here today, namely, that under no circumstances would the Northern Territory recognise the very special relationship that exists between the Aboriginal people and this monument of great significance to them? One cannot describe the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, as a breast-beating leftie. Let me come back to the argument. What was the argument about? The argument being advanced-the honourable member for the Northern Territory knows it-was that the Northern Territory Government was prepared to recognise the relationship of Aboriginal people to the Rock. Of course it was because at that stage the evidence was overwhelming and even the Northern Territory Government recognised it. Secondly, it was prepared to give title. Mr Ian Cameron —Why didn't they? Mr HOLDING —That is a very interesting question. The reason the Northern Territory Government did not give title to the Aborigines was, I suspect, that Prime Minister Fraser did not trust it any more than we do. It appears from the record Mr Fraser, a member of the former Liberal-National Party Federal Government, advised that the Commonwealth would not abrogate its responsibility for the park until a satisfactory conclusion was reached with regard to negotiations between the Northern Territory Government and the Central Land Council. Honourable members should think on that. A conservative Prime Minister said: 'We will not abrogate the Commonwealth's responsibility in respect of this park until we are satisfied about the arrangements that are reached between the Northern Territory Government and the Aboriginal people'. He went further than that. He went on to suggest that there be an agreement similar to the Cobourg arrangement which would help to satisfy the Commonwealth's requirements concerning the protection of Aboriginal interests. What is the Cobourg arrangement? The Cobourg arrangement involves Aboriginal people in the management and control of the park and a recognition of their title. It is as simple as that. The records are available. That is the record. The Labor Government came to office with that background of negotiation, with that background of discussion, and with a recommendation of a very distinguished judge recognising the cultural and spiritual relationship between the Aboriginal people and Uluru. There was no question about that at that stage; Mr Liddle was not anywhere on the scene. We decided to follow the course of those negotiations and take them to their logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is in this legislation today. How is it that all of a sudden the Liberal Party and the National Party, which once had a commitment to land rights, which once recognised the long-standing tradition of Aboriginal people, suddenly start talking with shock and horror about the enormity of what we are doing? What are we doing? What we are doing is very simple. We are recognising that long-standing ownership, that long-standing cultural relationship. We are entering into an agreement which is not dissimilar to the agreement which was reached in respect of Kakadu, where the title of the traditional owners was recognised and land was leased back to the Commonwealth so that the land could be conducted as a national park. It is as simple as that. As to the lease arrangements, it is palpable nonsense to suggest that the average Australian will feel a sense of deprivation or a sense of loss. The average Australian who visits Kakadu does not feel any sense of deprivation or loss. The average Australian who visits Cobourg-if he can get in-does not feel any sense of deprivation or loss. The average Australian who visits Uluru will feel no sense of deprivation or loss. What he will feel is that there is a Government that has been prepared to bring these long-standing negotiations to a head and recognise the rights of our indigenous people. To hear honourable gentlemen from the backwoods carry on one would think that the Australian Government was the only government on record which could do such a thing. I was in America recently. Shock, horror! The Grand Canyon, one of the great tourist attractions of the United Sates of America, is on Indian land. Does the average American citizen or the average overseas tourist who visits it feel any sense of deprivation or loss? Of course not. I shall finish on one point. No examination of the record here indicates that we have not followed the course, and brought to a logical conclusion the negotiations that had been going on under the previous Fraser Government for almost seven years. I say with regret that the response of the Opposition, rather than being a responsible one, is that they have had about half a dozen positions in half a dozen weeks. When I had announced the conclusion of the negotiations and stated that the terms of the lease were agreed, the Opposition shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Higgins, on 14 March, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, not only condemned this arrangement but went on to say-- Mr Shipton —Of course I condemned it. Mr HOLDING —Yes, but what did the shadow Minister go on to say? He said that sacred sites should continue to be protected-there is no argument with that-but that the monolith itself should remain with the Commonwealth on behalf of the Australian people. Mr Shipton —That's right. I said that we are now giving it to the Territory. Mr HOLDING —I see. How is it that when the shadow Minister first considered the matter-and we are looking at March, only a short period of time ago-there was absolutely no doubt in his mind that sacred sites would be protected, but the Rock must remain with the Commonwealth. What happened, of course, is that 'casino' Everingham, the member for the Northern Territory, who is absolutely expert at giving other people's properties away, went into the Party room and said- Mr Shipton —Oh, get it right. Mr HOLDING —Honourable members opposite know that they have changed their position on this, not for any reason of principle and not for any reason of logic, but to meet what honourable members opposite perceive as the current political climate under which they might pick up a vote or two. Because the matter was raised in debate, I finish on the point: The Government was taken to task in this whole area for not endeavouring to produce a bipartisan policy. I think in this area there ought to be a bipartisan policy. When I became Minister, one of the first things I did was to introduce a motion into this House to establish the basis for the creation of such a policy. The reason that there was a bipartisan policy on the question of land rights before was because there was a Liberal Government which had a commitment to land rights and an Opposition that had an equal commitment-probably a far stronger commitment. How is it that we could have a bipartisan policy under a Fraser Government but it is more difficult under a Hawke Government? The reason is very simple. I went to the former shadow Minister and said 'That is our statement. We do not regard it as being the final statement, but if the Opposition has any reasonable amendments, we will be very happy to look at them'. The reason that motion was never proceeded with was that the range of amendments proposed would have meant that there would be no consensus, that there would only be another ranging debate. There was no point putting forward a motion which was supposed to provide the basis for consensus if in fact the reality of the situation was that we were going to engage in a hard debate emphasising the differences. Basically, the issue would be determined by a ringing of the bells and a counting of the numbers. That was no basis for consensus. Therefore, we did not proceed with the resolution. How can there be consensus? I am entitled to ask the shadow Minister whether the Opposition supports the principle of land rights? The reason there is no bipartisan policy is very simple. The conservative parties in this House which once held this commitment no longer- Mr Ian Cameron —Equal rights. Mr HOLDING —I hear what the honourable gentleman says and of course what he is making perfectly clear is the shift in his position. Mr Ian Cameron —No, I have always believed that. You know that I have always believed that. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member was not so vocal when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister. I say to the honourable gentleman that we cannot establish a bipartisan policy on an issue like land rights if the Government is committed to land rights and the Opposition is fundamentally opposed to granting them. We cannot create a basis for bipartisanship on these issues when the Leader of the Opposition refers to the racist policies that have been promoted by an organisation like the Australian League of Rights. It is well that he does not necessarily agree with all of it, but it is running in parallel with the Opposition. I simply make the point that it is absolute humbug and hypocrisy for members of the Opposition to come in here and say how important it is to try to get a bipartisan policy when they, by their own actions, have moved away from any concept of bipartisanship when they moved to a situation- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(4.55) —Quite frankly, I am amazed by the tenor of this debate because what has happened is that the Opposition, by its campaign, has raised all the fears of racism amongst the community at large in a manner that I believe would horrify most people in this House. What we have seen, frankly, is a load of old cobblers. What is it exactly we are doing that is so terrible? We are in fact acknowledging the ownership of Ayers Rock by the Aboriginal people. We are acknowledging their long history of association with that part of Australia and their emotional and spiritual commitment to it. In acknowledging that long relationship with that area, we are prepared to come to an arrangement with them that that is their land and they are re-leasing it back to us for the management of that area as a major national park. Listening to members of the Opposition one would think that what we are doing is something strange and new. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has already gone over the example of Cobourg National Park, negotiated by the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). However, in view of the hysteria I would like to give the example of Kakadu National Park. As a result of the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry the Liberal-Country Party Government of the time amended the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to enable Aboriginal Land-- Mr Everingham —Give us that $130m, Barry. Mr COHEN —I beg your pardon? Mr Everingham —Back in 1983, $130m-don't you remember it. Mr COHEN —Why does not the honourable member listen to what I have to say instead of shouting out in the middle of the debate. I will take as long as the honourable member likes. As I said, in 1978 the previous Government amended the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to enable Aboriginal land in the Alligator Rivers region to become part of a national park. We arranged that the granting of land rights in the area was subject to the lease of the land to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for national parks purposes. We decided that the Director could take Aboriginal land in the region on lease for a period not exceeding 100 years. We agreed to pay an annual rental of about $7,500 to the Northern Land Council for the Aboriginal land in the park. Who was that done by? It was done by the Fraser Government and the honourable member for the Northern Territory was the man who leased, under a similar arrangement, Cobourg National Park from the Aboriginal people. This is the third time an arrangement of this nature has been entered into by a government to establish a national park and to lease the land from the Aboriginal people. The honourable member for the Northern Territory made great play about the history of the Ayers Rock development and the fact that I said in my second reading speech that I had been involved and interested in this project back in the late 1960s when I first became a member of the Parliament. I followed with interest the work that had been done by the Harris Kerr Foster report in 1965 on the travel and tourist industry in Australia and later by the Pannell Kerr Foster inquiry. As the unofficial spokesman on tourism at the time I developed the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Ian Cameron —You still are. Mr COHEN —There was no shadow spokesman at the time and I later became the shadow Minister from 1978 to 1980. I was one of the few people at that time who were interested in tourism in this Parliament. There was very little interest in the Federal Parliament in the question of tourism. I pushed and prodded when we were in government to get that development going. The whole project was started. However, when the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 through the coup it abandoned the project. Later on it resurrected it. An amount of money was set aside for the development of the Ayers Rock project as a result of the settlement between the Commonwealth Government and the Northern Territory Government. So the honourable member for the Northern Territory should not say that the Northern Territory provided the money. In fact, 89c in every dollar the Northern Territory got came from the Commonwealth Government. The honourable member should not talk about what the Northern Territory did. We are talking about Commonwealth funds. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said that the development at Ayers Rock had been shabby, and I could not agree with him more. How did that happen and under whom did it happen? Do not let us forget that since 1948, for all but five years, conservative governments have occupied the Treasury bench. So if there was no development, lack of development or bad development at Ayers Rock, whose fault was it? It was certainly not the fault of the Labor Government. The honourable member also asked why we had not set up the advisory board. We cannot do most of these things until this Bill is passed. Mr Everingham —That is not so. Mr COHEN —Well, I am sorry, but it is so. The advisory committee, which is mentioned in the current plan of management, was not set up. It has been superseded by the introduction of this Bill, which seeks to give the Aboriginal traditional owners greater involvement in the management of the area. The advisory committee can be set up as soon as the Bill is passed. I think the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), who is a previous Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, asked why Ayers Rock has remained under Commonwealth control. The simple fact is that the Fraser Government would not trust the Northern Territory Government with either Uluru National Park or Kakadu National Park. We know full well what would have happened to those parks. All sorts of fears are being raised in the minds of the Australian people that, somehow or other, after this legislation is passed something terrible is going to happen to Ayers Rock. What do people think we are going to do with it? Take it and flog it off to overseas interests, like coalition governments do with everything else in this country? Ayers Rock will stay as it is now and as it has for the last million years. It will be there for the next million years. The Australian people will have full access to the rock, as they do now. The idea that somehow or other, because the rock is now nominally owned by the Aboriginal people and leased back to us, the average Australian is not going to have access to the rock is nonsense, and honourable members opposite know it. Just as people now have access to Kakadu National Park, they will have access to Uluru National Park. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, complained about the excessive rental. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) talked about the large amount of money the Aborigines were going to get. I point out that $100,000 is going to be shared amongst all Aborigines who now inhabit the rock area. Mr Ian Cameron —How many are there? Mr COHEN —I understand that there are 300 to 400. These people are hardly going to be taking international trips on the money they are going to get out of this. The total is $75,000 plus a per- centage of the rental-roughly $100,000-and indexed for future increases. We do not hear the honourable member for Maranoa talking about means testing for some of his country colleagues when they get too much money. He believes that it is bad to give money to Aborigines but not to cockies. It is very simple-one rule for the cockies and one for the Aborigines. Give nothing to Aborigines because it spoils them. Is that what the honourable member was saying? Mr Ian Cameron —Never. Mr COHEN —That is what I and everybody else here heard. Let us talk about the question of photography. If ever there was a furphy, it is this one about photography-that people now will not be able to take pictures of the rock. To repeat what I said earlier, that is a load of old cobblers. The simple fact is that any tourist can take any photograph he likes. He never has had to, and never will have to, get permission. However, what is essential-this applies not only to Ayers Rock but to every other national park in Australia that is run by a State or the Commonwealth-is that permission has to be obtained from the State or Commonwealth national parks and wildlife service to film a commercial operation. Mr Tuckey —Is Mr Toyne on that? Mr COHEN —If the honourable member must make an interjection, would he make it an intelligent one? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Order! With a great deal of respect, the Minister did in fact invite an interjection. I point out to him that the honourable member for O'Connor needs no such invitation. Mr COHEN —That is true. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is one of the greatest pieces of wisdom to come from that chair since I have been here. Let us talk about the photography. There is a great deal of what one might call amnesia on the other side of the House. When in opposition, honourable members opposite forget what they did when in government, and we have a whole set of new rules. The whole question of the leases in respect of Uluru, Kakadu and Cobourg did not happen apparently. In fact, the guidelines for photography in Uluru National Park were set up during the period of the previous Government by my predecessor the honourable member for Darling Downs. If one wanted to carry out a commercial operation one had to go through a process of applying to a national parks and wildlife service. In the case of Ayers Rock, one has to go through the consultative process with the Aborigines of the Mittjulu Association and so on, and permission is then granted. Exactly the same procedures have been followed since we came to office. Unfortunately there have been some irresponsible people among the media, some of whom I suspect wanted to create an incident because that would give them a nice run. Mr Everingham —Oh, Barry! Mr COHEN —With all due respect, I am not going to name them. However, the honourable member knows the position as well as I do. In fact, his successor, Mr Hatton, made it very clear to me at a meeting we had a few months back that he believed that a couple of the incidents that occurred at the rock were set up for the purpose of creating a television incident. I mention a couple of examples such as Val Doonican, Simon Townsend, the Willesee Show and the Italian people. All the problems could have been overcome by simply sticking to the procedures. To avoid that happening again we now have for the first time two Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service officers on the ground at Uluru. We did not have this arrangement before because the park itself, although owned by the Commonwealth, is run by the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Service. From now on there will be two Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service officers at Uluru to ensure that that sort of confusion does not happen or, if it does, we will be able to sort it out much quicker. I repeat that the guidelines are the same as have applied over the last 10 years and were set up by our predecessors. Before we proceed to the Committee stage of the Bill, I would like to say that, if ever there was a case of a beat-up in this Parliament to raise fears in the minds of the Australian people that somehow or other they are being denied access to what I agree is one of our great environmental and cultural assets, this debate is it. There is no reason in the world why we cannot both provide full access to Australians and international visitors and at the same time acknowledge the Aboriginal people's long, historic, spiritual and emotional ties with Ayers Rock. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Shipton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. N. Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. 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.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Beale, J. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F.Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. N. Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. 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.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. CBraithwaite, 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 McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Spender, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.22) —In this general Committee stage, we are taking as a whole the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill which transfers Ayers Rock, Uluru, to a particular group of Australians, the Mititjula community. I repeat, as I said in the second reading debate, that the Opposition opposes this legislation on the basis that Ayers Rock is part of the heritage of all Australians. It is a national monument and a symbol for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians alike. We oppose the Government's course of being selective and of handing the rock to one particular community when the traditional ownership is in doubt. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has said that this is part of the total land rights debate-he said that when talking to a group of Aboriginals who were occupying his Department's offices at Woden last week. I repeat that he has unreasonably raised the expectations of the Aboriginal community by making promises that he is unable to deliver in relation to land rights. By so doing he has destroyed any hope of a bipartisan debate on this matter by promising something to Aboriginal communities that he cannot deliver. This legislation is very much the second prize and he is pinning his great hopes on this legislation because he knows he cannot deliver on the other things he has promised. I have also pointed out that this is a very sensitive time as this is a fragile issue in the community. By unreasonably raising the expectations of the Aboriginal community, the Minister has exacerbated the debate and has created a backlash in the Australian community. This makes it much more difficult for those who are trying to achieve real gains in the advancement of Aboriginal people. I would like to ask the Minister about proposed new section 4 relating to grants of land to land trusts which refers to 'an agreement' with the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Minister has not brought such an agreement before the House, he has not tabled it or annexed it to the legislation. Apparently that agreement will provide the terms and conditions of the lease of Ayers Rock-Mount Olga National Park. We need to know clearly the terms and conditions of that agreement or lease. Apparently there are to be renewal conditions every five years. We want to know whether the rent can be increased every five years and what are the terms and conditions of that rent. It is irresponsible of the Minister not to have brought such an agreement containing the lease before the House. He is giving land away to a particular group under an agreement or lease which has not been tabled in this Parliament and which is not known to the people of Australia. The Minister rejected my appeal for an anthropological study and quoted Mr Liddle to whom I referred in my speech. I think that was most unfair. It was cowardly of the Minister to refer to Mr Liddle as a token Aboriginal. When an Aboriginal does not agree with him, he then describes such a person as token. That is a dangerous state of affairs in this country when a Minister describes somebody as token just because he does not agree with that person. The Minister was very selective in his quotations. I quoted Strehlow, the well-known anthropologist, now deceased. I quoted an article he wrote in 1969 for the Inland Review supporting the view that landscape-and this is my argument-is more important to non-Aboriginal people than it is to Aborigines. The Minister chose to ignore my quotation of Strehlow and my argument based upon it. The Minister also failed to take into account what I said about the well-known Aboriginal National Aboriginal Conference member, Mr Ray Robinson, who called for Ayers Rock to be handed to all Australians. The Minister selectively attacked Mr Liddle which I think is unforgivable. The Minister , in his second reading speech, referred to the Toohey report, 'Seven Years On', and said that Opposition members were not aware of it. I am of course aware that Toohey looked into the matter and said that there were a number of claimants, such as the Jankuntjatjara, the Pitjantjatjara, and the Matuntara linguistic groups. But it was the Minister who forgot who these groups were because he gave the rock to the Mititjula community, which is a community formed for administrative purposes at the rock. It does not represent any of those traditional linguistic groups referred to in Toohey's report. It is the Minister, not the Opposition, who has made mistakes. I would ask the Minister to state in this place what are the terms and conditions of the agreement and lease. I raise two final matters with the Minister. One relates to the photography ban. Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs guarantee that photography will be able to take place at Ayers Rock and that incidents of the type concerning Val Doonican, Paul Hogan, the Melbourne Herald and others will not happen again? Also I mentioned the subject of a life saving alarm system that was arranged to be installed at the rock. There have been a number of accidents on the rock whose face is very steep indeed, as the Minister might know if he has climbed it. I think that there have been some 14 accidents over the years and some nine heart attacks. Other people have fallen and lost their lives on the rock and there may have been heart attacks as people have come off the rock. A life saving alarm system was to be connected at a number of points. There is a telephone at the bottom of the rock. A life saving system was planned at the top of the climb, but the Mititjula community apparently was against that installation. I would ask the Minister to take up that matter and to have the system installed. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.28) —I wanted to speak earlier on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985, and went to some trouble to prepare what I considered a worthwhile speech but, as time is so short for this debate, unfortunately that speech will not be made. It is another speech to be filed away. Mr Cadman —Blame the Leader of the House; he is hopeless. Mr HAND —Why does the honourable member for Mitchell not sit in his right seat if he wants to open his mouth? Throughout last Thursday, and again this afternoon, we have listened to Opposition spokespersons who have attempted to be critical of the Government for its action in granting the land at Uluru National Park to Aboriginal people. They have raised a number of points to which I want to address my remarks. One matter is the entitlement of the people in that area to this land. The Aboriginal people established their rightful claims in front of Mr Justice Toohey. Mr Ian Cameron —Come on, Gerry. Mr HAND —It is very difficult to speak while the honourable member for Maranoa is interjecting. He came into the House and made a contribution in which he talked about every conceivable issue except the one we are debating. He talked about unemployment benefit, kangaroos and a whole range of other unrelated issues. If he would like to be quiet he might learn something about the Bill in the course of the Committee stage. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a grant of title to the land in Uluru National Park to an Aboriginal land trust and to provide for an arrangement whereby the Aboriginal land trust is required to lease back the land to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to hold for the purpose of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. I think two points ought to be made about that lease. The second reading speech of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) states: The lease-back arrangements agreed with the traditional Aboriginal owners of Uluru provide for the traditional owners to lease Uluru to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for a period of 99 years, and an annual rental of $75,000 plus 20 per cent of gross park entrance fees- I do not think that is an unreasonable situation to have us agree to. In fact, it gives the Aboriginals representation on the board. Also, I think it ensures that the park will be managed in accordance with the wishes of both the Aborigines and the general non-Aboriginal community. I want to refer to the speech in the second reading debate of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), who is the Opposition's spokesman on this subject. He talked about creating division in the community. Since last week he has been known as old riotous Roger because of his performance in the front of this place. We have been through that a number of times. I do not want him to get excited, leap to his feet and take a point of order. But, quite frankly, his performance the other day surprised me. It surprised me that he would get into that sort of behaviour. Whilst I am on my feet I would like to pay a tribute to certain people who are in the gallery-Pat Dodson from the Central Land Council, Rob Riley from the National Aboriginal Conference and some of the other people from that area. I hope they are taking note of the remarks being made by the Opposition members in this debate who have been parading around as the great defenders of the Aboriginal community when, in fact, they are doing exactly the opposite. I will not go into the other points raised in the speech of the Opposition's spokesman. He talked about traditional owners. I think the reference to Mr Justice Toohey quite clearly overcomes his problem. I want to make some remarks about another speaker, and that is the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). He has left the chamber and I am sorry about that. Perhaps I will get another chance to speak after the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I am sure that his contribution will be a rip-roarer. I do not think he will pay a lot of heed and attention to the legislation. We all know his background and his attitude to Aboriginal people. We are all waiting with bated breath for what he has to say. I am sure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who are sitting at the table, will do what they normally do with the honourable member for O'Connor when he talks on this issue-wipe the floor with him. I will get back to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. In this House today he talked about this proposal to give Aboriginal people title to Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park and about how wrong it all is. In the Northern Territory News on Saturday, 11 May 1985 the honourable member's remarks were reported. The article was headed: 'Plan for The Rock criticised'. The article stated: Canberra-The Aboriginal community who wanted to reclaim Ayers Rock was 'a tiny vested interest group of very unsophisticated people who are totally manipulated by a couple of smart white advisers'- I know a couple of those white advisers. The honourable member for O'Connor, by way of interjection, talked about one adviser, Phillip Toyne. I am glad and proud to be a friend of Phillip Toyne. The honourable member underrates Aboriginal people when he puts down and criticises these white advisers. Aboriginal people are not stupid. They are not able to be manipulated by white advisers. Phillip Toyne would be the first person to point that out to the honourable member. When he has a go at Phillip Toyne and other people he is having a go at Aboriginal people. It is unfair and very unjust of him even to suggest that. Let me come back to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. It is very interesting that, as has been quoted, in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 13 February 1980 he said: The Northern Territory Government has been attempting to negotiate with the Aboriginal people through the Central Land Council in respect of Uluru National Park exactly the same arrangements for the last twelve months. As we are now negotiating with the Northern Land Council with respect to the Cobourg Peninsula. The honourable member came into this House and criticised this Government for achieving what he attempted to do in 1980. In 1982 he put the infamous 10-point package to Aboriginal people but, again, Aboriginal people were not what he thought they were. They saw through this Mickey Mouse approach by the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory to try to con and mislead them, and they rejected it. It is interesting that the honourable member says that he has never offered land to these people under the same sorts of programs. I will be attempting to get room in this place to show a videotape I have. Honourable members opposite are quite welcome to watch it. There we have the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, now the honourable member for the Northern Territory in this place, making an offer to grant freehold title to Aboriginal people. Yet for cheap, opportunistic purposes he came into this place today and tried to tell the people of Australia that this is wrong and will divide the community. Why was he, as Chief Minister, prepared to hand out his pamphlet-it is all on there-along with Malcolm Fraser and suggest that the Aboriginals should have freehold title? Why do people who parade around in other roles have a different set of rules and principles? Then the honourable member came to Canberra and landed on the Opposition benches. I point out to people that even Joh Bjelke-Petersen did not want the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He has been quoted in the media as saying that the reason the honourable member is in the Liberal Party is that the National Party did not want him. He probably will not be here for terribly much longer because the people of the Northern Territory, and certainly the Aborigines, will not be voting for him next time because they have seen through him. He talks with a forked tongue. He says one thing in the Northern Territory and comes to Canberra and ingratiates himself with the racist elements which exist within the Northern Territory- Mr Connolly —He is a first class member. Mr HAND —He is not a first class member. If he was, the honourable member would not have to keep saying that. He would be able to prove it himself. The point is that all this is on the tape. It is a pity that I cannot incorporate it in Hansard because it shows members of the Liberal Party for what they are. They are phoneys in the extreme. Mr Tuckey —I did not think you blokes would mention the word 'tape' again. Mr HAND —Here is the old iron bar basher, the man who goes around the countryside and has other people hold Aborigines while he hits them with an iron bar. He should not start talking about Aboriginal affairs. He is an outrageous disgrace to this place and his record speaks for itself. Not to be outdone, again in 1984 the honourable member for the Northern Territory, in his capacity as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, indicated his preparedness to recognise Aboriginal claims to Uluru by offering perpetual freehold title under Northern Territory law. He said: I am ready to resume discussions with the traditional owners . . . Earlier in the debate we were told that there are not any traditional owners. That was what was said today. In 1984, 1982 and 1980 there were traditional owners. It seems to me that by calling divisions honourable members opposite are wanting to get their names on the record as having opposed this measure, as honourable members opposite have been doing. That tactic is designed purely to get on side with people in the community who are definitely opposed to Aboriginal people. I want to touch again on the remarks of the honourable member for the Northern Territory because I think it is important that we point out a couple of things about him and understand why he has come to this conclusion. My time has almost expired but there will be another opportunity to talk about some other issues of which people are becoming aware in regard to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I will be raising them in other debates. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.40) —It was interesting to get some comment from that great urbanist, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who has had about four or five- Mr Cohen —Urbanist? Mr TUCKEY —Yes. He has urban tunnel vision, what is more. He has spent about three weeks or maybe six months of his life-certainly a few weeks collectively-dealing with the problems of Aboriginal people and he thinks he is the full bottle. He wants to talk about my involvement- Mr Hand —On a point of order- Mr TUCKEY —This will be a frivolous point of order, Madam Chairman. I heard your remarks on that today. Mr Hand —The remarks of the speaker are incorrect- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor need not give his advice to the Chair. I do not need it. I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr Hand —My point of order is that what the honourable member cited as my experience in this area is not correct. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member does not have a point of order. He will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —I repeat: The man has urban tunnel vision. If he wants to talk about my position over a period, he can say at any time that I have a conviction for assaulting an Aboriginal person. I will repeat it for him: The man was a gangster. He used to bash up people of his own race frequently and at that time he had eight convictions for doing that. I will protect an old lady, whether she is black or white, from a gangster. The honourable member would not understand that. His politics are the politics of bash. Let us get that straight when we talk about people. That is what is wrong with this Bill. The honourable members thinks that no white person can protect old ladies from a black gangster. That is his view and that is his problem. He is hung up. Mr Hand —It does not give you the right to hit him with an iron bar. Mr TUCKEY —I did not; it was something else, and it was necessary because he could fight. Mr Holding —It was necessary to hold him, too. Mr TUCKEY —It was, but do not let us worry about that. Plenty of that happens around areas the Minister would know well. The honourable member also talked about divisions. Let us talk about hypocrisy. I know why divisions are wanted. We want to get a group of Western Australian members on the record because they do not speak in this place like the honourable member for Melbourne. They have not come into this debate. Those members know what the feelings are of Western Australians, the people who elect them, and they are conspicuous by their absence. Mr Blanchard —I spoke. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Moore had a few words of a very moderate kind to say, but the others are not here. I remember on a previous occasion challenging the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), then Minister for Aviation, to debate me on this subject in the Ascot Inn right in the heart of his electorate. He has never taken me up on the issue and he is not likely to. I can tell him how his constituents feel on this issue. That is why I am on my feet. Honourable members become members of this place with numerous responsibilities, not the least of which is the responsibility to represent here, in debate and by vote, the needs, aspirations and requirements of the majority of their constituents. It is not for politicians to claim that their election to office allows them to force their opinions on the electorate. It is not for policitians to force the views of their electorate committees or their branch secretaries upon the community. It is not for politicians to claim a right to impose the opinions of some foreign constituency upon their electorate. It is often not possible to meet all the demands of the constituency. Financial constraints may make it impossible. In most cases, nevertheless, we fail to meet the demands of our constituencies only by failing to give what they desire. Only occasionally do we give them things that clearly they do not want. These Bills now before the Parliament, which will transfer Australia's best known natural monument to an ethnic group with very limited proven rights to such an area, should any such thing have a moral status, are not the result of community demand and in fact face overwhelming community opposition. The legislation is not wanted by the majority of Australians, whether they be counted across the nation or by electoral division. Australians are outraged and enraged by the Government's intentions. Whereas Australians tolerated and, in some cases, supported previous actions to create and grant ethnic land title, it was the announcement by Prime Minister Hawke of the granting of title to Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal co-operative that dragged them from their apathy. To those, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales, who were secure in the knowledge that 'it could not happen to us', the shock was immense. Ayers Rock is a piece of every Australian's backyard. To claim that it is not the property of all who have Australian citizenship is to take an irreversible step in the partitioning of Australia. If the Government does not believe that, there is a simple solution: It can hold a referendum on the matter and can gamble with me on the result. Mr Cohen —We had an election. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, but have a referendum on that issue and see how you go. The Government is denying the Australian people what they want of it. This irreversible step is not the first step. That step was taken long ago but was generally ignored. The partitioning of 40 per cent of the Northern Territory was just too remote for urban Australians. They thought that they lost nothing directly, and this apparently worthless gesture made some feel good. The granting of title to Ayers Rock is the irreversible step in the partitioning of Australia. It is the step that puts a mental partition in the minds of most Australians. Mr Holding —Partitioning? What nonsense! Mr TUCKEY —The Minister wants to talk to the people who vote for him. Mr Cohen —We did, at the last election. Mr TUCKEY —How many? It is a partition that puts Aboriginals apart. No longer will the Aboriginal be seen just as socially different; he will now be seen universally as having taken something that belongs to all Australians. This will be aggravated further by power-hungry white advisers who have already demonstrated their stupidity by denying access to media groups and others. When one adds to this the disastrous mismanagement of Aboriginal funding, which daily appears worse, one need not wonder why that gap will widen. When it is all over, we might ask: What is in it for the Aboriginal community? What is in all of this land rights business for the individual Aboriginal? Why should the previously steady and patient moves to accept and cement integration be disrupted by such moves as the granting of the title to Ayers Rock? This legislation creates a lease-back which will transfer $100,000 per annum to an Aboriginal co-operative. That might help Aboriginals in some way, but I am somewhat interested to look at how they have been helping themselves to date. I looked for land council reports, but I found that I could not get a report from the Northern Land Council. It has not put one out for three years, although it is thinking of putting out a composite effort now, so I cannot tell honourable members how they have been helping themselves except that I know that the royalties and other payments going to the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account are in the order of $17m per annum. All I can find out is what is going to the Central Land Council, which I congratulate on an excellent report. At least it has put something out for the last two years, but of course it deals with only $2.5m of the $17m. I find that total income is $2.596m and then all of a sudden I find how it is spent. Mr Cohen —What is it that whites object to about Aborigines getting money? Mr TUCKEY —I am talking about doing some good for Aboriginals, not giving them a bureaucracy. That is what I am talking about. Let us look at how the money is spent. When I look at that revenue-- Mr Hand —What has this got to do with the Bill? Mr TUCKEY —It is about the $100,000 the Government is going to give the Aboriginals. Let us see how it will disappear. When I look at the expenditure I find that they spent $237,000 on consulting fees, $19,000 on information and public relations, $30,000 on land administration, $158,000 on meeting expenses, $96,000 on office expenses, $41,000 on payroll tax, $939,000 on salaries and wages and $254,000 on travel. Mr Cohen —What is wrong with that? Mr TUCKEY —I just want to know when the Government is going to do some good for the Aboriginals. At the end of all that, $1.9m has been spent out of $2.5m and not a penny has been spent on housing, education or health-the things that people want. The Central Land Council is a bureaucrats' benefit. The Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account is a bureaucrats' benefit trust account. That is where the money is going and that is what I am attacking the Government for. Mr Cohen —On a point of order-- Mr TUCKEY —Oh, come on! As soon as it starts to hurt, Barry-- Mr Cohen —It has nothing to do with this Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Of course it is about the damn Bill. There is $100,000 of rent in this Bill. The Minister knows it is there and I am telling him how the Government let the money be wasted. I have been criticised. I sat on committee after committee in Carnarvon and built 40 houses for Aboriginal people. We had to summons the Western Australian Minister for Health to achieve that. I worked very hard to get people the things they needed-housing, education and proper health services. That is what I worked for in my community. With my fellow councillors, I got the Aboriginals out of the reserve; we got them out of their horrible conditions. That is how we did it. We served a summons on a Liberal State Minister. I am talking about the good we can do for Aboriginal people-not the rubbish that the Government comes up with to grant them title to Ayers Rock, to give them nothing else, and then to let the land councils have money to spend on administration and nothing on anything else. The two reports of the Central Land Council show that $25,000 out of $5m was spent on housing. Yet the Minister reckons he can administer things. The only problem is that whenever he walks past a bit of corruption he thinks he is back in Richmond. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I point out to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, in relation to when he was thinking of raising a point of order, that very few members have actually spoken to the Bill. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.50) —I desire to address myself to some of the remarks that have been made. I am pleased that there are some Aboriginal people present in the chamber on this occasion, because I think it will give them some insight into the approach of the Opposition on these matters. Reduced to its simplest form, what has been suggested by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is that all we really need to do for Aboriginal people is give them a house and a feed and see that, if they get problems with their tonsils or some disease, they are looked after. The honourable member for O'Connor and his colleagues, with the sense of paternalism which came right through every word, said that they will determine what Aboriginal people need and want; they will determine what Aboriginal aspirations and hopes are in terms of achieving some measure of social equality. Mr Tuckey —What are you doing? Mr HOLDING —The first thing I will say is that the honourable member ought to recognise that in 1985 this Government recognises that Aboriginal people are able to determine for themselves their aspirations and hopes. They do not need someone like the honourable member for O'Connor to interpret their hopes and aspirations for them. I return to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. The one point that has not been answered by any member of the Opposition is that the decision in respect of Uluru was not a decision taken in isolation. It was a decision which virtually culminated some seven years of negotiation between a former Liberal government and a conservative administration in the Northern Territory. What we have seen today is an attempt by the Opposition to achieve the very thing that Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister and a Liberal conservative coalition government would not concede in government. That is the reality. What a previous Liberal-National party government said was that the Northern Territory Government could and should negotiate with the land councils, which have been the subject of disparaging remarks by honourable members opposite, for the purpose of granting an Aboriginal title. It appears from the records that the only difference between the Northern Territory Administration and the former Government was ultimately resolved. There was no question about title being handed over to the traditional owners. The Northern Territory Government-honourable members can have it in black and white if they want it-wanted to give a Northern Territory title. That was the very clear import of a statement made by the then Prime Minister. What could be clearer than this? I refer to a statement made in June 1982 by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the present honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). He did not make very many statements, so this is a collector's item. After the intervention of the then Prime Minister he said: A land rights package being pursued by the two governments-- that is, the Northern Territory Government and the then Federal Government- would include provision for ownership of Uluru by Aborigines by way of a grant of Northern Territory title to Aboriginal trustees and for the area to be declared and managed as a national park. The only difference now is that there will be a Federal title. There is a Federal decision in respect of Federal property and title will issue under Northern Territory laws. During the entire period of the Fraser Government Administration, the principle of recognising the claim of Aboriginal people was never in dispute, either by the previous Government or the Northern Territory Administration. That is the simple, undeniable fact. So what we have here today is a disgrace to a party that once stood for land rights. It is an absolute disgrace because what we have now is a mawkish, latently racist exposition. I exclude the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), from that. The honourable member for O'Connor said: 'Oh, what we must do is look at the balance sheets of the land councils'. I say this: The balance sheets of the land councils, imperfect as they may be, would not compare with some of the balance sheets of the backers of the Liberal and National parties-the tax dodgers who were not too anxious, when there was a Bill in the Senate, to retrieve half a thousand million dollars defrauded from the Commonwealth. Were the honourable member for O'Connor and honourable gentlemen opposite concerned? Did they say: 'We must retrieve those ill-gotten gains fraudulently taken from public revenue'? Oh no! They said: 'That would be retrospective. We must not do that'. But let an Aboriginal land council present a public balance sheet which shows that it is doing its duty and the honourable member for O'Connor says: 'Hang on, we can't have them running their own affairs. It is up to us to say whether they are sick or well. It is up to us to say whether we will give them a house or an education'. That latent racist attitude has no place in Australian society. I would say very simply this: The decision on this issue has been taken by the Parliament today. It is a decision which flows logically from the previous negotiations that have taken place. It is a decision in principle which says to all Australian people that we not only recognise the relationship our indigenous people to this important part of Australia but also believe that the management processes which we are putting in place will operate not merely for their benefit but for the benefit of all Australians. I dismiss the mean and despicable utterances of some honourable gentlemen opposite. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.58) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (1) ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory, subject to an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in management of the Park; (2) portions of the Park to be vested in freehold title to Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas, and (3) right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites and the Park.'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Shipton —Yes. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. N. Andrew) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. 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.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edward, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, D.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.08) —Honourable members will recall that at about 2.30 on Friday morning, when we were debating the second reading of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, I made a number of observations about the reasons why the Opposition is opposing this legislation. I think it is worth noting in that context that the principal political problem with this Bill is that the Australian Labor Party built up unreasonable expectations in the Australian Aboriginal community. The point was made in the previous debate that in fact negotiations for the handing over of control of the Uluru National Park to the Aborigines were initiated both by the Northern Territory Government and by the previous Fraser Government. No one has ever denied that discussions were conducted between those two authorities. However, it is only a question of time before the Northern Territory achieves statehood. On that ground alone this legislation creates an opportunity which the Hawke Government should be taking to proceed with the devolution of responsibilities from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Government. What the amendments to the enabling legislation, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, do is to install in the Act provisions by which the Commonwealth will continue to control national parks in the Northern Territory for a substantial period. While this Government quite clearly does not wish to see the Northern Territory reach statehood, the simple, inexorable fact is that in time it will. The actions and initiatives which have been taken by this Government in our opinion fly in the face of reality. In addition, the Opposition believes that the government, by handing over this national monument to one section of our community, is reducing the rights of the remainder of the Australian community. It has been said by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) that the Fraser Government had an approach to land rights which is not shared by those on the Opposition benches today. May I go a step further and make the observation that the views of the Fraser Government are certainly not shared by the current Minister or by the Party in government. If that were not the situation I think we would have overcome in the last 2 1/2 years what has become a serious problem in Australia, which, to a large degree, has been created and developed by the Minister and by the Party of which he is a member. As I have said, the Australian Labor Party built up unreasonable Aboriginal expectations for land rights in Australia. I think it is worth noting that it was the previous Government which, over its seven years in office, put land rights in place, something that this Government has failed to do. Surely in some respects the time has come to review the implementation of that legislation and to see how it has affected land rights and other economic and social activities in areas which are related to it, in particular, of course the Northern Territory, where the question of mining, has created considerable difficulties. It remains very much a canker in the mind of the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I trust that in due course he will do his best to overcome it. The Fraser Government accepted the significance of Ayers Rock and the Uluru area to the Aboriginal community which resides there. It is for that reason that on 24 May 1977 the Uluru National Park was proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This provided a means of safeguarding access to the wider Australian community while, at the same time, ensuring that the sacred sites and the significance of the area as a whole would continue to be protected. Those of us who were still awake at about 2.15 on Friday morning will recall an observation made by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in response to a comment I made as to why it was that we were debating this legislation more or less in vacuo, because so much of the information about negotiations which had apparently been conducted between the relevant Ministers and the local Aboriginal community had not to this date been made available to this Parliament. It is not, in my opinion and the opinion of the Opposition, a sensible basis upon which legislation of this importance should be debated unless we have access to all that information. The amendments which have been incorporated in this legislation refer to the question of plans of management. I made the observation in my speech at the second reading stage of the debate that the Opposition does not even know at this stage whether the local Aboriginal community is prepared to accept the existing plan of management and, if not, what amendments it wishes to see in place. I recall the Minister making an observation which he later denied. However, the simple fact of the matter is that there seems to be substantial doubt in the minds of members of the Government as to what exactly they are trying to achieve in this area. I think that most significant in terms of plans of management is section 11 of the Principal Act, as amended, which puts in place arrangements by which there will be a majority of Aboriginal membership on the board responsible for plans of management. This Government has established a very interesting situation which can only be described as a sleight of hand. While on the one hand it says that it favours Aboriginal land rights, by which it apparently means that the overall control of an area should be under the administration of the local Aboriginal community, the fact of the matter is that under the amendments to this legislation the Government will achieve precisely the opposite. It has made an arrangement by which although a majority of Aboriginals is on the board the key decisions will be made by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and, in cases where there may be disagreement between the Aboriginal community-that is, the majority on the board-and the Director the decisions can then be made by the Minister. All we have, as a sop, is that management plans will be tabled in the Parliament at some future date. I find this a rather extraordinary situation. The Government's desires to maintain Commonwealth control indefinitely, by using subterfuges while at the same time saying to the Aboriginal community: 'We are giving you power to determine your own future but we do not really trust you so we are putting a mechanism in place which makes sure that public servants, based in Canberra, with the support of Ministers who are again in Canberra, will determine the welfare of the Aboriginal community and the wider welfare of the Uluru Park'. These are precisely the reasons why the Opposition is not supporting this legislation. We do not see that it is consistent with the objective to devolve power from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory. We do not see it as consistent with the overall responsibility of any Federal Government which is to look after the interests of all Australians. I think it is fair to say that surely Ayers Rock is truly Australia's symbol of solidity and strength and as such it must belong, and be seen to belong, to all Australians. For this reason the Opposition opposes this legislation because it gives title of the Uluru National Park to the Aboriginal community and thus negates the belief that many millions of Australians see the rock as belonging to their nation, in fact belonging to us all. The Bill proposes that the Commonwealth will lease back the park from the Aboriginal community but that the park must be managed, as I have said, by a board on which the Aboriginal community will have a majority membership but no effective power. It is a matter of regret that because of the Government's failure to provide information we are debating this Bill in a vacuum. All we have been told is that the lease back will cost taxpayers $75,000 a year plus 20 per cent of the park's takings, which represents a further $20,000-odd. For those members of the Government who have gained some pleasure in this debate from trying to brand the Opposition parties as being anti-Aboriginal land rights, they would do well to check realities against what they may like to think. It was the coalition Government which introduced land rights legislation; it was the Hawke Labor Government which destroyed the National Aboriginal Conference. It has been the Hawke Labor Government which, to date, has failed to put in place the Aboriginal policy upon which it was elected and that was to continue an effective system of Aboriginal land rights in Australia. All we have seen in the 2 1/2 years that the Australian Labor Party has occupied the Treasury bench has been constant fights with its State counterparts, especially in Western Australia. Consequently, is it unreasonable for the Aboriginal community to feel surprised and somewhat concerned as to its future? All one can say is that the government has given it every reason to feel that way. Therefore, the problems of the future as far as land management is concerned should rest with the Northern Territory. That is precisely the reason why we believe that this legislation should not be passed and it is why I move: Schedule, page 12, omit the amendment to sub-section 7 (11A). This is a very relevant and important amendment because it gives the Commonwealth power to extend parks within the region. The region as far as this legislation is concerned is not just Uluru but also the Alligator Rivers region and, of course, the Kakadu National Park. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(6.19) —It was not until the last few seconds of the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that he talked about his amendment. I am not going to canvass all of the matters that he raised in the first 9 3/4 minutes of his speech because they have already been canvassed widely in the debate so far. He referred to sub-section 7 (11A) which, as he points out quite correctly, applies to Kakadu National Park as well as to the Uluru National Park. The Fraser Government introduced the present sub-section 7 (11A) in 1978. The intention of that action was to implement a recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, that the declaration of a national park within the region should be exempt from public representation requirements. This was justified at the time in view of the considerable public discussion which had already taken place during and preceding the inquiry. I remind honourable members that probably no issue in the history of this Parliament was ever more widely canvassed than this issue through the Fox inquiry. That was the reason why this section was put in. As I said before, it was a sensible section because it had been very widely canvassed in public debate and it was pointless to have further public debate on the issue. However, recent legal advice has suggested that sub-section 7 (11A) of the Act is too vague and that it could exempt from public comment not only proclamations creating parks within the region but also proclamations removing land from parks. This interpretation conflicts with the intention of the sub-section. The reason why we have suggested this amendment is to clarify the legislation. The amendment expresses the original intention of sub-section 7 (11A) by clearly providing that the exemption from public representations will not apply to proclamations whereby land would cease to be park or reserve. Furthermore, only land within the region could be made park or reserve without public representations, as was the case under the Fraser Government's original sub-section 7 (11A). The amendment would also enable land already in a park or reserve to be incorporated in another park or reserve without the need for public representations. This provision would apply only where the status of the land would not be changed by the proclamation. Therefore, we reject the Opposition's amendment. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(6.23) —As to the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), we believe that the proclamation is necessary because it gives an opportunity to the public to have notice and it is very important that there be notice in these matters. We have seen the problems of excessive power with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in relation to the photography ban occurring at Ayers Rock. We believe that the amendments that the Government is proposing enable the Commonwealth to transfer land within a park, reserve or wilderness zone to another park, reserve or wilderness zone without having to comply with section 11 of the principal Act-the public notice section-without the need for proclamation. We believe that that is unreasonable. I ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to again provide the terms and conditions of the agreement under the previous Act and the lease, which would be relevant under this Act, as to the terms and conditions upon which the park is to be owned by the lessor and leased. We clearly need to have those terms and conditions before this Parliament. The other point I make is that there seems to be a difference as to the treatment of the Uluru National Park under the legislation introduced by this Government and that of Kakadu National Park. Under the Government's definition, the future traditional owners of Uluru have a say in the management decisions of the park but under the Kakadu arrangement there is a different arrangement in relation to consultation. Is the Government intending to change the situation in relation to Kakadu? The Minister has indicated that he wants me to repeat the point I made about the difference between Kakadu and Uluru. Under the proposal, as I understand it, and we have not seen the lease and the agreement, it is proposed by the Government that the traditional owners-I understand that they will be the members of the Mititjula community, but the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not told us in this House to whom it is going to be transferred-will have a majority say at Uluru in the management decisions of the park but the traditional Aboriginal owners of Kakadu do not have the same power. They are only consulted. In fact, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service seems to have the say there. I ask the Minister whether there is a difference in control over the management of the park? For instance, does that have something to do with the placing of Kakadu on the World Heritage list? Whilst the Minister is getting the answer to that, the other point I want to make is in relation to the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, which is a dedicated organisation with officers who are really dedicated to protecting the environment for which they are responsible. I believe they have played a fine role in relation to Uluru National Park and that they have an excellent relationship with the Aboriginal community which lives there. However, they have been chopped off and cut out and there is no role for the Northern Territory Conservation Commission in this new proposal. I think that is outrageous and scandalous because it is a dedicated organisation, managed and run by dedicated people who feel strongly about the environment in the broadest sense of the word. I believe that to cut them out and to put in Canberra bureaucrats is really nothing short of outrageous and irresponsible. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment)(6.25) —I will be as brief as I can. I could not quite follow the reasoning of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) at the end when he said that the Northern Territory Government is not going to be involved. Mr Shipton —The Conservation Commission. Mr COHEN —It is going to run the Uluru National Park. Mr Shipton —It is not on the management committee. Mr COHEN —Yes, it is. The only thing is that we will have two Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service officers there, regarding the photographic applications, which I mentioned before. The honourable member for Higgins raised the question of extending the arrangement of Kakadu National Park. There is a difference between Kakadu and Uluru National Park. Kakadu was not discussed in detail but the Uluru model could well apply. It is true that the Kakadu owners are watching the Uluru experiment with interest. The fact that it is not the same is because the Kakadu arrangement was drawn up by a different government at a different time. This is something a little bit bolder and a little more venturesome and we will see how it operates. If it works well, it may become the model for Kakadu. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(8.03) —Mr Speaker, in closing the debate I want to thank every member who has taken part in this- Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order. Did the Minister say: 'In closing the debate'. You cannot put it like this. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. Mr Donald Cameron —You just cannot close off debate. This is an absolute rupture of democracy. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Moreton. Mr HURFORD —In closing the debate, I want to thank every honourable member who has taken part. Indeed, over a few days there has been a very long debate on these Supply Bills and many members have got much off their chests. We now need these Bills which the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has allowed to be debated for an enormously long time. We have had a very wide ranging debate. The relevant departments of government will look at Hansard to see the points that have been made by honourable members. I commend the Bills to the House and I trust that they will be passed. Mr Donald Cameron —I have had a speech for five weeks ready to deliver to this chamber. Mr Scholes —You might come into the House occasionally and then you will get the call. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Moreton. Mr DONALD CAMERON —(Moreton) (8.04)-Mr Speaker, I wish to deliver the speech which I-and many other members on this side of the chamber also are in the same position-have ready for delivery. Motion (by Mr Hurford) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, J. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, J.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Blunt, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.15) -I now desire to present the speech that just a few minutes ago, I was deprived the opportunity of making. I am quite in order, despite what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) may think. It is time members of this House were given an opportunity- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. 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.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. 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 Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Blunt, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party) —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of procedure. About 3.30 this afternoon I noticed that the proceedings of the House were being broadcast. I inquired and found that, this being an extraordinary Monday sitting day, the practice would be for the House of Representatives to be broadcast. I find now, at 8.23 p.m., that our proceedings are not being broadcast. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you could ascertain from the person responsible for the Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings whether this House is being broadcast and, if not, what procedure is being adopted to determine whether this chamber or the other place should be on the air after dinner on a Monday of an extraordinary sitting day. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the query. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I have not been informed as to why our proceedings are not being broadcast. I understood that it was part of the procedure we had adopted some time ago that there would be split broadcasts between this House and the other place to make up the hours. Mr SPEAKER —Order! My understanding of the resolution of the House was that there was to be a division of time on extraordinary days. I will have the matter quickly checked and answered, but I am sure that the proper procedures have been followed. The Leader of the National Party will remember that a balancing procedure was recommended and adopted by the Committee. This is part of it. Consideration resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Young: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Young: 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 Hurford) read a third time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, and seek leave to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. In giving leave, I comment that we are giving a quarter-of-an-hour dispensation. I understand the problem, but I stress that in regard to the business of the House it facilitates consideration if, normally, we have the two-hour notice of the statement about to be made. In those circumstances, we give leave, given the problems that existed. Mr Young —We have been almost scrupulous in following that convention of the Parliament. We are 15 minutes out on this occasion, but let me remind the Parliament that in the lead-up to 1983 the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, completely disregarded that rule. He never gave us his speeches two hours beforehand, and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) was part of that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There seems to be a certain indigenous restiveness around the place tonight. There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr WILLIS —The report of the Committee of Review I have just tabled is the result of a wide ranging and fundamental examination into Australian industrial relations law and systems. The Review Committee had as its Chairman Professor Keith Hancock, and Messrs George Polites and Charlie Fitzgibbon as members. The background and experience of the Chairman and members is well known. The terms of reference of the review were unanimously endorsed by the National Labour Consultative Council and had the bipartisan support at the political level of all of the States and the Northern Territory, being ratified by the Conference of Labour Ministers. The charter of the review, as specified in its terms of reference, was to examine, report and make recommendations on the development of a more effective and practical industrial relations system in accordance with social, economic and industrial changes which have occurred and are taking place in Australia. In short, the review was to make a detailed examination and report on the strengths and weaknesses of the Australian industrial relations system. In the light of its investigations, the review was commissioned to recommend changes so that the system can better respond to developments during the rest of the century. Nothing in its terms of reference prevented the Committee from a complete reassessment of the current system and, if it was seen as warranted, recommending its replacement with some other system capable of providing better results. The report addresses fundamental issues in this respect. These include the type of system we should have; the objectives of the system; the economic impact of industrial relations; and the specific institutional and operational components which go to a practical and effective system. Of equal importance to the recommendations themselves is the detailed examination of our industrial relations system in all its aspects that forms the basis of proposals for change. Quite correctly, the review has taken a very broad interpretation of its terms of reference to examine the industrial relations system in its social and industrial dimensions and its operation at the Federal and State level and at the level of the work place. The Committee has also provided a detailed examination of the economic issues involved in wage fixation and has addressed specifically the frequently made claims for a more decentralised deregulated system. I note that the Committee even went so far as to arrange a conference on 'Alternatives to Arbitration' which brought together academics and practitioners specifically to address the alternatives such as a deregulated approach to industrial relations based on collective bargaining. I welcome the approach of the Committee to its terms of reference and that such a wide range of views were put to it from major sectors of the business community, economists, lawyers and the like, as well as from the established industrial organisations, both employer and union, both big and small, operating nationally and at the State level. These organisations and individuals demonstrated a willingness to put submissions forward, and for both orthodox and radical views to be the subject of critical examination by a representative group of our most experienced and distinguished individuals in the industrial relations and economic arena. It was therefore a real opportunity for the critics of the system-and there have been many in recent times-to put up or shut up. It is a major finding of this report that these vocal critics failed to put up any workable alternative, despite being given ample opportunity to do so. Insofar as alternatives were presented, they gave little consideration to how they could be given practical effect in the real world of the Australian labour market. The fundamental finding of this report is for the continuation of Australia's system of conciliation and arbitration. The Committee thoroughly examined arguments for change and concluded that no realistic proposals nor compelling arguments to abandon the current system had been put forward. The Committee specifically warned against accepting the 'grass is greener' fallacy-the assumption that because given arrangements have defects there must be some preferable and available alternative. In the Committee's view, change should be attempted only if there is reasonable ground for the expectation that present problems will be overcome and worse problems will not be created. Clearly, the Committee did not find this to be the case with arguments for abandoning our present system. In this context the report refutes the suggestion that there is any conflict between deregulation of financial markets, as pursued by this Government, and the continuation of a conciliation and arbitration system. The report rightly argues that there are fundamental differences between labour markets and financial markets-in particular, the fact that labour markets are subject to concentrations of power through the organisation of trade unions. This finding has particular validity given that the Chairman of the Committee, Professor Hancock, was a member of the Martin Committee which examined the deregulation of Australia's financial system. One of the main advantages the Committee sees in our system of conciliation and arbitration is that it affords a mechanism for a centralised wages policy. In reviewing our recent history of wage fixation-since the beginning of the 1970s-the Committee notes that wage 'explosions' have occurred during periods of decentralised wage determination. It points out that wages policy, as part of incomes policy, provides an important avenue for government management of the economy which can curb inflationary behaviour other than by restricting aggregate demand. In short, wages policy, together with other arms of economic policy, can provide means by which governments can do more to increase output and employment. The report specifically points to the unattractiveness of the alternatives to an incomes policy which offer continuing, and possibly escalating, inflation and reliance upon demand management with its corollaries of higher unemployment and reduced output. The Committee undertook a most comprehensive examination of evidence concerning the question of whether wage relativities encourage or impede the adaptation of the labour force to structural change, and the influence of the conciliation and arbitration system on the Australian wage structure. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of many of the economic studies that have been undertaken. It found little to support the assertion that the arbitral tribunals have damaged the economy by their influence on wage relativities; nor does the Committee consider that the allocation of labour depends heavily on flexible relativities. Claims that our wage system is too inflexible to adapt to changing economic circumstances are not borne out. However, acknowledging that a given set of wage relativities are unlikely to be 'right' forever, the report considered it desirable for the industrial relations system to have the capacity to accommodate changes in relativities to reflect changes in work value. With regard to assessments of work value, there was a need for effective reviews to occur wherein the force of comparative wage justice was restrained in favour of the reassessment of absolute pay levels. The Committee also supports in principle, and subject to certain constraints, the retention in the system of a capacity for the wage fixing tribunal to have regard to the particular circumstances of threatened industries or firms, to allow wage levels below those which would otherwise be prescribed as a means of protecting employment. The Committee also believes that a review of juvenile relativities might be appropriate but emphasises that it is mistaken to see in the present levels of juvenile rates the major cause of juvenile unemployment and to hold high expectations of the beneficial effects of their reduction. It can be seen from my brief outline of the Committee's discussion of the economic and wage policy issues that these matters loomed large in the Committee's considerations. Its conclusions in this regard form an important basis for its general recommendations to retain our system of conciliation and arbitration and not to adopt the alternative of wholesale collective bargaining. However, because economic and industrial relations issues come into play at all levels of our industrial relations system, the Committee recommends that in all proceedings of the Commission the public interest be taken into account and for that purpose regard be had to the state of the national economy and the likely effects of any decision on the level of employment and on inflation. In the fundamentally important area of wages policy, therefore, the main thrust of the report gives strong support for the Government's approach. The review unanimously concluded that conciliation and arbitration should remain the mechanism for regulating industrial relations in Australia. It is likely that the critics of conciliation and arbitration will assert that that would have been expected of the Committee. Such an assertion fails to address the arguments in support of a conciliation and arbitration system on their merits. As the Review Committee found, these arguments are substantial. They go to community acceptability, the attitudes of the parties who participate in the industrial relations system, the achievement of macro-economic policies and the maintenance of an orderly and equitable framework for the resolution of industrial conflict. An important element of the system is the process of dispute resolution. The Committee has made recommendations going to more certainty in the use of the processes of conciliation and arbitration. The Committee places greater emphasis on conciliation as a first step and upon the parties accepting responsibility to resolve their difference. The recommendations also deal extensively with means by which more direction can be given to the parties' own relationships in dealing with work place disputes and for effective resolution rather than their being turned into industrial action. The Committee has also made other significant recommendations concerning dispute resolution including the concept of industry consultative councils, different means of dealing with demarcation problems and the application of sanctions for unacceptable industrial behaviour. With regard to sanctions the Committee recommended that all provisions providing for fines or imprisonment for persons engaged in strikes, lockouts or other forms of industrial action be repealed. Such provisions have, of course, been inoperative since 1979. The Committee has, however, recommended streamlined provisions for cancellation and suspension of awards and deregistration of organisations as a more effective form of sanction. Perhaps the most controversial recommendation of the report is that the Act should be amended to allow the parties to enter into an agreement for the resolution of disputes by their own agreed processes of conciliation and arbitration, and for the terms and conditions of employment resulting from these agreed procedures to exclude Federal awards and State prescriptions. Whilst appreciating the increased flexibility that such a provision could bring to the system, it would be necessary to ensure that disputes settlements arising from this process did not destabilise the wages policy being pursued in the formal system. The Committee has devoted considerable attention to changes in the structure of the institutions within the system. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is to be replaced by an Australian Industrial Relations Commission which emphasises the role proposed for the new body in all matters pertaining to industrial relations, including consultative processes, consideration of the public interest and the promotion of industrial harmony. Further, the Industrial Division of the Federal Court of Australia will be replaced by a new Australian Labour Court made up of suitably qualified persons who will also hold concurrent commissions as deputy presidents on the Industrial Relations Commission. It is also proposed that the Chief Judge of the Court will be President of the Commission. These changes would provide the scope for the highest degree of integration of Federal arbitral and judicial powers. The Court would have the role of interpreting and enforcing the decisions and awards of the Commission. The report also recommends a complete recasting of the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act to provide a more ordered and simplified framework for the operation of the Federal system. Any proposals which make the system more understandable to ordinary men and women are to be welcomed. The Government accepts the general thrust of the review recommendations. It believes that the parties within the industrial relations systems, once they have examined them, will also endorse the thrust of the great majority of the recommendations. The Government believes that the wider community will also endorse the report when it has understood the complex, detailed but cogently argued investigations, analysis and recommendations of the review. An important aspect of the review's work has been devoted to an investigation of the manner in which the Federal and State industrial relations systems might better interrelate. The review has recommended as a long term measure that the Australian Government initiate discussion with the States with the view to putting an integrated system of industrial relations into place. In the shorter term it is recommended that the Federal-State system be improved by building in more co-operation and co-ordination into the existing dual system. The Government is moving immediately to give effect to the report's recommendation. The Premiers and Chief Minister are being invited to agree to the placement of an item on the agenda of the next Premiers Conference so that more detailed work can then be undertaken by the Conference of Labor Ministers and officials. Side by side with this activity the Government has arranged for the National Labour Consultative Council to immediately begin an assessment of the report and participate in the development of legislation to give effect to the recommendations. The Government is also aware of, and welcomes, the organisation by various interest groups, including academics and the media, of a series of seminars and conferences to discuss and debate the report and recommendations of the Committee of Review. These conferences and seminars, along with the detailed investigations to be carried out by governments, and the parties to the industrial relations system, will play an effective and practical role in assisting to develop an acceptable and workable system of industrial relations for presentation of the necessary legislation to parliament. In conclusion, I should like to place on public record our appreciation of the work of the members of the Committee as reflected in their report and recommendations. In many respects their investigations have encompassed and been exposed to opinions which range across the complete spectrum of economic, political, community and industrial relations viewpoints. I congratulate the members of the Committee for their fairness and independence in receiving and assessing these submissions and views, the comprehensiveness and clarity of their report, and in presenting us with unanimous conclusions on virtually all matters. I present the following paper: Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems-Ministerial statement, 20 May 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(8.43) —Let me state at the outset that the coalition is resolutely committed to a real improvement of Australia's industrial relations system. There can be no greater necessity for a future coalition government which will have as its fundamental priority the economic revitalisation of Australia's economy, the restoration of full employment and the social well-being and prosperity which can flow from these achievements. When we gain office at the next election we will with great resolution embark upon real improvements necessary in our industrial relations system for these goals to be achieved. It is my task tonight on behalf of the coalition to present our broad and initial action to the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. It is an enormous report running to some three volumes and just over 1,000 pages. We did not receive a copy of the report until this morning. The Government has had it since 30 April. Honourable members will therefore understand that I will be presenting only the coalition's broad initial response to the Hancock report. When we have considered all 148 recommendations and the total 1,000-odd pages in detail we will be in a position to articulate our detailed position on it and will do so in this House and in other forums. The coalition believes that there are two matters central to a positive improvement of Australia's industrial relations system-two matters which must be addressed if we are to pull ourselves out of the economic hole into which we have fallen and appear to be disappearing deeper and deeper. I refer to the question of accountability between employers and employees who are parties to industrial relations agreements and to the need for the creation of a second stream in our industrial relations system based on voluntary, contractually-based collective bargaining. The three members of the Hancock Committee all have a long and intimate involvement with Australia's centralised industrial relations system. They were commissioned by a Labor government headed by a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who similarly has a long and intimate involvement in that centralised system, as does his Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). It therefore comes as no surprise to this House that the Committee concentrated on how the centralised system itself, widely regarded as being deficient in several key respects, could be improved and made to work in a more effective manner. To the Committee's credit it has recognised that the present Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has for many years been incapable of ensuring any accountability or discipline in adherence by unions to the Commission's own awards and rulings. The Committee has also recognised the need to create a mechanism through which parties who wish to make their own agreements outside the centralised system could opt out of that system. I draw the attention of honourable members to recommendation 21 of the Committee's report which says: Part X of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be amended to provide that parties who wish to make their own arrangements for the prevention and settlement of disputes by conciliation and arbitration may do so, and that the terms and conditions of employment resulting from those agreed arrangements would be able to operate to the exclusion of federal awards . . . Recommendation 21 is not the coalition's idea of the ultimately desirable policy approach on the creation of a dual industrial relations system. Nevertheless, we commend the Committee for its courage in making that recommendation at all knowing that its report was destined for the hands of a government which is unable to be consistent in its handling of economic deregulation and which is shaking the very foundations of the market place with uncertainty as a result. Let me clearly foreshadow that it is the coalition's clear intention to pick up where the Hancock Committee left off. We will be going into the next election with a very clear policy which will provide the necessary legislative framework and protection for employers and employees to voluntarily opt out of the centralised system for a system of collective bargaining based on mutual accountability and responsibility. Similarly, with respect to accountability within the centralised system, we commend the Committee's willingness to be candid about the present Commission's shortcomings as far as ensuring its adherence to its own rulings is concerned. We agree that the creation of a new system not tainted by the long history of compromise and impotence that the present Commission is saddled with is a desirable option. Indeed, the abolition of the present Commission and its replacement with a new tribunal has long been a central plank in the coalition's industrial relations policy. Regrettably, however, here too the Committee has not gone far enough. On the matter of accountability, the coalition has profound doubts that the threat of union deregistration will be enough to ensure accountability on their part to the proposed new tribunal's rulings. The coalition's policy proposes that parties who break industrial agreements may be sued by the offended parties for damages arising from the breach of the agreement. We believe that this very direct method will be the most persuasive way of turning accountability between parties to industrial agreements into a habit instead of a very infrequently observed exception to the rule. Australia can no longer afford the luxury of having an industrial relations system which allows one side consistently to flout the umpire's decision with little or no penalty. We cannot afford it from an economic standpoint and from a social standpoint, for nothing so encourages the displacement of labour by capital as irresponsible and unreliable employees. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that industrial relations anarchy is a powerful disincentive to employers for the hiring of new employees or the maintenance of existing work forces. One further aspect of the Committee's report which heartened the Opposition is its proposal that the new tribunal be forced to give priority consideration to the public interest in its decisions and to the economic impact of its rulings. Regrettably, the report does not have any detailed recommendation as to how the proposed new tribunal should do that. Nevertheless, this is another area in which the Committee has drawn on proposals contained in the coalition's industrial relations policy and which we will ensure when next in government. To summarise the coalition's view of the positive aspects of this report, bearing in mind our reservations that I outlined earlier and will deal with specifically later: We are heartened to see the adoption of some of the coalition's approach to the improvement of Australia's industrial relations system. I refer specifically to the abolition of the existing Commission and its replacement by a new tribunal; a new emphasis on the public interest and economic ramifications of the new tribunal's decisions and the recognition of the existing system's failure to secure real accountability between parties to industrial agreements; and, thirdly, a recognition of the need to create a second industrial relations stream, as suggested and alluded to in recommendation 21, which effectively proposes the amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to create an opting out clause. Let me flag briefly some of our more specific concerns. I look forward to having the opportunity to be able to spell these out in greater detail later. In respect of Commonwealth-State jurisdictions, we would not support the transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth, which was one option proposed in recommendation 8, to achieve integration. Joint legislation through consultation is the only proper avenue. In respect of recommendation 17 which deals with reinstatement, we reject the awarding of reinstatement powers to any Commonwealth tribunal. If an employee claims wrongful dismissal, he or she should seek damages according to the normal legal processes. With respect to recommendation 19, which deals with independent contractors, the coalition rejects any extension of a Commonwealth tribunal's jurisdiction over sub-contractors. One of the strengths of sub-contract labour has been its flexibility and ability to avoid being bogged down in any commission or tribunal proceedings. This is partly the reason for the spectacular increase in the demand for the services of sub-contractors. The freedom of sub-contractors to remain outside the system must be protected. The Hancock report calls for the establishment of a new Australian Labour Court. We have concerns about the seemingly incestuous nature of the proposal. In our view, enforcement of awards might be better achieved by a court acting more at arm's length from the proposed new tribunal. We have a doubt that the accountability can be ensured as is recommended. In respect of conscientious objection, which is dealt with in recommendations 84 to 86, the coalition feels that the Committee has got the wrong emphasis entirely with respect to quasi-compulsory union membership. Its recommendations in this area continue very much in the vein of the past, which dictated that employees who did not wish to join a union had to demonstrate conscientious objection. The coalition is planning strong legislation to guarantee the free association of employees, including the freedom to join or not to join a union. In respect of sanctions, which are dealt with in recommendations 135 to 144, as I outlined earlier, the coalition places great importance on re-establishing accountability within any industrial relations system. We are afraid that the Committee's handling of this accountability question is inadequate. The threat of deregistration can only achieve so much. Our policy proposes that damages be awarded against parties which breach an award or a contract of employment. Action along these lines is clearly necessary if true accountability is to be re-established between employers and employees. Industrial relations is an area where there are clear and very important differences between the Government and the coalition. We are most concerned that government at the Federal level in Australia is being conducted in an improper manner. From our observation the Hawke Government is operating under undue influence from the trade union movement via the leading spokesmen of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. For many weeks we have watched the very sad and extremely serious degeneration of the Government's capacity to devise and develop public policy for the benefit of all Australians. We have seen this with respect to the Queensland blockade whereby the Hawke Government left the citizens of an Australian State out in the cold, leaving them to suffer at the hands of an ACTU inspired and organised campaign of persecution. We have seen it more recently in respect of taxation policy. The Government is unable or unwilling to stand up and advocate the tax package it regards as the most equitable and most effective for the Australian people. Instead, it hangs on the approval of the ACTU. The Government has not had the courage or the fortitude to stand up and take a position on tax reform independently from the ACTU. We have seen it most seriously on the question of wages policy. Despite the informed opinion urging the Government to abandon full indexation based wage fixing, the Government continues to weakly and expediently put forward the approved ACTU line. The Hawke Government is not fulfilling the duties and responsibilities which the electorate imposed on it at the last election, namely, to govern without fear or favour in the interests of all Australians, not merely on behalf of some powerful sectional interests. It is time this Government started living up to its proper role. In government, the coalition would see the clear necessity to go significantly beyond the mere patching up of the centralised stream of Australia's industrial relations system. It is vital that the system be improved substantially so that it can facilitate rather than frustrate our capacity to take advantage of the opportunities that are thrust upon us. The recent devaluation of the dollar is a graphic case in point. It is widely acknowledged, and with great alarm, that if the Government sticks to its course on the question of discounting it will be sending Australia's economy and any hopes for reducing our very high continuing unemployment down the shute. While we support the improvement of the centralised stream of industrial relations in Australia, we believe, along with many others, that it is simply not enough. The development of a strong and vigorous decentralised stream, with all its attendant beliefs in terms of stimulation of labour demand and economic growth in general, is essential if the economic and, therefore, the social revitalisation that the coalition so fervently desires is to be achieved. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 13 May. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(8.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill concerns the Government's decisions on the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board, and certain elements of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 which require amendment so as to conform with complementary State legislation or to correct minor irregularities. The Wheat Marketing Act 1984 gave effect to wheat marketing arrangements to apply for the five-year period from 1 October 1984. Under that Act, the term of office of all Board members expires on 1 October 1985. No provision was made for the process by which grower members of the Board of the Australian Wheat Board were to be nominated for appointment after that date. Since 25 October 1984, the Board has comprised 15 members including two grower members from each mainland State. Following a recent review by me of the Board's operations, the Government announced a restructuring package including an 11-member Board comprising a full time grower chairperson, one grower member from each mainland State, a government member and four members with a high level of expertise in at least one of finance, marketing or industrial relations. Also, an alternate grower member was to be appointed from each mainland State. In a change from previous selection arrangements the Government foreshadowed the formation of a nine-member Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee, comprising an independent presiding member selected by the Minister, five members nominated by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, the Australian Wheat Board chairperson and two nominees of the National Farmers Federation, including the President. The Minister would retain responsibility for selecting the chairperson and the government member with the grower members and four specialist members being selected by the Committee. Amendments to the Bill in the Senate propose arrangements which differ from the previously announced restructuring package in a number of important respects. Government amendments had regard to the views of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation by providing that the Selection Committee should determine whether alternate grower members are to be appointed to the Board of the AWB. The Government also agreed to vary the categories of skills required of members with special qualifications, substituting the broader field of grain movement logistics for industrial relations. Finally, the two NFF members of the Selection Committee are to be nominated by its President, who may also serve on the Committee if he so decides. The Bill before the House retains the essential elements of the Government's restructuring proposals as previously announced with one important exception. This concerns the acceptance by the Senate of an Opposition amendment which reduces from four to three the number of members of the AWB Board with special qualifications. I foreshadow a Government amendment to the Bill to restore a proper balance of skills available to the Board. The Government rejects moves by the Senate and the industry to dilute expertise on the Board. We believe that boards of statutory marketing authorities-SMAs-should have an appropriate balance of skills and adopt a corporate approach, both in respect to the commercial functions of marketing and finance and in resolving problems affecting the interests of wheat growers in disparate locations in a manner consistent with the interests of the industry as a whole. I have examined Board minutes going back two years and it is my view that the number of times a decision has to be taken on the basis of a vote or that growers have to have a majority, is infinitesimal. The fact is that the key financial decisions are taken by three people and that the Board acts as a consensus organisation often with too little debate. The Government's proposals for restructuring the AWB reflect the broader policy objectives which have been set down to apply to all SMAs. That is, SMAs should have independence and flexibility, consistent with safeguarding the Minister's responsibility to Parliament, to allow them to respond effectively to the demands imposed by operating in a competitive commercial environment. This involves substantially relinquishing ministerial controls. I would like to stress at the outset that the control of the AWB remains firmly in the hands of growers. The Government's proposed 11-man Board comprises a majority of growers. Growers are also in the majority on the AWB Selection Committee. Should the Committee decide that there should be alternates to State grower members, this is provided for in the legislation. Under the Selection Committee arrangements, growers will now have a major influence on the nomination of members with special qualifications, as well as grower member nominations. There is also a formal link between the AWB and the AWF through the consultative mechanism provided for in the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 giving growers the opportunity to be fully informed on Board policies. To avoid conflicts of interest which could arise, the Government does not intend to appoint a serving President of the AWF to the Board of the AWB. It is also open to the AWF as the representative of growers to make representations to me on any matter affecting Board membership and policy. The Board has a State based grower majority under the Government's proposals. What we want is a balance of skills such that the Board has appropriate expertise to provide overall direction to Board staff so that commercial advantage is maximised and risks minimised. The potential for error is great and we wish to reduce risk in the growers interests. The Government could not accept a Board comprising two grower members from each mainland State because of the struc- tural imbalance which it could impart to the Board. The Board size would militate against it acting in a corporate manner and hence reduce the effectiveness of decision-making. The advantages of having four members with special qualifications on the Board become apparent from a consideration of the size and scope of the Board's major functions of marketing and finance. The Board's annual report for 1983-84 which I tabled recently records revenue from wheat sales during that year of $2.67 billion, making it a major commercial marketing entity by any standard. The Board faces significant marketing challenges in disposing of the record crops of recent years and it is obvious that it will continue to be faced with major challenges in the years ahead. Against long term average wheat crops of 15 million tonnes, AWB receivals in 1983-84 and 1984-85 of around 22 million and 18.5 million tonnes respectively were the largest crops received by the Board. Eighty per cent of Australian wheat production is sold on overseas markets which are depressed by surplus stocks held by major producers such as the United States of America and the European Economic Community. World wheat prices have declined in real terms. Predatory credit and marketing practices of major overseas competitors increase the marketing difficulties faced by the AWB. While supplies of wheat are in excess, demand from traditional purchasers of Australian wheat has declined. China has reduced its purchases because of its increasing degree of grain self-sufficiency and has not renewed a long term agreement which expired last year. Sales to the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics are down considerably on last year with increasing emphasis being placed by USSR negotiators on countertrade. The AWB is called on to make decisions on a day to day basis on the price, timing and conditions of sale for wheat, having regard to the high cost of storing and financing unsold wheat. Sound commercial judgment borne of extensive high level experience is necessary at the Board level to guide management in its marketing task. Under the Wheat Marketing Act 1984, the AWB is required to make advance payments to growers of a guaranteed minimum price. Grower payments for handling, storage and freight and all AWB costs are met by borrowings which are repaid by sales receipts over time. During 1983-84, the AWB borrowed and rolled over on short term domestic and international commercial money markets in excess of $6.5 billion. The AWB's borrowings involve the establishment of domestic and overseas funding facilities totalling over $4 billion to cover the current season's payments and to service outstanding debt on wheat of previous seasons. Negotiations with the international financial institutions concerned may directly involve Board members. It is essential that adequate provision be made at the Board level to ensure continuity of expertise. The floating of the Australian dollar has added further emphasis to the importance of currency risk management to an organisation such as the AWB. The financial difficulties experienced by the Queensland Graingrowers Association due principally to exchange losses, should serve as a reminder in this regard. Also, trading decisions on the currency, interest rate and futures markets in which the AWB is empowered to operate, have significant implications for grower returns and the Government's underwriting liability. As well as ensuring that the AWB Board has an appropriate balance of skills, growers and Government can only be confident that their interests are being protected if the best available persons are appointed to those positions. I regard the Selection Committee as a vital element in efforts to ensure that the most effective Board is appointed. The Committee will have an independent Presiding Member and the power to engage staff and consultants to assist it in its task. It will determine selection criteria against which the Committee can objectively assess the suitability of prospective appointees and which must be addressed by the Committee before it puts forward its nominations. It will be critical to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise. I realise that the grower organisations have an agro-political problem in respect of the Committee. This was best exemplified by the fact that the AWF wanted up to 26 different growers to be involved in the selection of nine people on the Board. Another proposal involved about 50 people to select nine people. I know that the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation are critical of all governments for excessive bureaucracy, but having 50 people to pick nine or 26 to pick nine is going just a bit too far. But the Government is not so concerned for the problems of individual agro-politicians as it is about the interest of individual wheat growers, the industry generally and the public interest. The Committee will operate in a similar manner to the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee. Costs, estimated at $100,000 to select a full Board, would be met by the AWB. These additional costs could be expected to amount to less than 1c per tonne when spread over an average season's pool. In comparison to the potential costs of errors of judgment in the financing and marketing areas, the amount is inconsequential. I turn to the other elements of the Bill which amend the current Commonwealth legislation so that it conforms with complementary State legislation with respect to provisions governing the delivery of wheat and the operation of the permit system for stockfeed wheat. The delivery provisions in the Bill are similar to those contained in the now repealed 1979 legislation to be consistent with State decisions after the passage of the current Commonwealth legislation. This will facilitate the AWB's administration of delivery provisions of the national wheat marketing arrangements. Consistency is also required in relation to the eligibility of applicants for stockfeed wheat permits. Subject to the amendment foreshadowed concerning the number of Board members with special qualifications, I believe that the provisions of the Bill relating to the AWB structure will assist the AWB effectively to meet the significant marketing and financing challenges it faces. The Bill also ensures consistency of approach with the States on matters affecting wheat receival and domestic marketing. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.08) —The Senate has made a number of important amendments to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. The first change corrects an imbalance in the proposed structure of the new Australian Wheat Board. Secondly, the criteria for selection of Board members with special expertise were considered too narrow and have been expanded. Thirdly, the Senate has given the Selection Committee clear powers to appoint alternates of Board members. Fourthly, the National Farmers Federation President is given the option of appointing his nominee to the Selection Committee. An apparent mistake in a reference to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has also been corrected. The Government proposes to reduce the number of grower members on the Wheat Board from 10 to five and appoint four members with special industry expertise. I endorse the argument advanced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that the world marketing outlook is highly competitive and changing rapidly, and that there is a case for some Board members to hold special qualifications in such areas as finance and marketing. Arguably the greatest challenge facing the Australian industry over coming years is the green revolution in Asian countries. Who would have said with any confidence a decade or two ago that India and China would today be approaching self-sufficiency in wheat? Over recent years the Chinese Government has been progressively introducing elements of private enterprise through incentives to the farmers and the results are quite dramatic. The Chinese experience gives some emphasis to the old adage that two main forces motivate people-one is incentive and the other is fear. There is no greater engine of human propulsion than providing people with incentive. Indeed, this is why Australians could well prosper from a flat tax system. Since 1980-81 production in China has risen 48 per cent to an estimated 83 million tonnes in the 1984-85 season. This year China will import just 10 million tonnes, down almost 30 per cent over the same period. The challenges of the international market demand specialist knowledge. The Opposition concurs with the view that the Wheat Board can benefit from marketing and financial expertise. At the same time, this Parliament should not lose sight of the need for the wheat growers to maintain control over the administration and marketing of their crop. While it is invaluable to have members on the Board with special qualifications, there can be no substitute for those who have had the direct involvement and experience in wheat growing and handling. Last financial year the wheat industry was Australia's second largest export industry. More than $2.3 billion in foreign exchange was earned from a record crop of 22 million tonnes. Many growers have expressed their concern to me about losing grower control of their marketing body under this legislation. There is great depth of feeling on this issue among the wheat growers of Australia. I believe these concerns are justified. At present 10 grower members sit on the Board of 15. The number of members on the Board was increased from 14 to 15 last October when the Minister appointed a member to represent the Commonwealth. Of the 15 members, three have been appointed on the basis of their specialist expertise. To summarise, the present Board has a Chairman, with 10 growers, a government member and three members with special expertise. The Government intends that the Board should comprise a grower chairperson appointed by the Minister, five grower members, a government member and four members with special expertise. That is, the grower members are cut from 10 to five and members with special expertise increase from three to four. Grower members selected by growers will number five of the 11 Board members-five out of 11-whereas growers presently have 10 out of 15. It may be argued that the growers will maintain their majority on the Board because the chairperson will continue to be a grower. The limiting factor, of course, is that the Minister, not the wheat growers, appoints the chairperson. Alternatively, the argument could be that growers have a majority on the new Selection Committee. The limiting factor to this is that the people appointed will be experts in specialist fields. The initial reaction of the industry to the move to cut producer numbers by half was one of extreme disappointment and widespread anger. Despite this, the industry has taken a very conciliatory attitude. It has accepted a reduction in the size of the Board by limiting one grower representative from each mainland State. At the same time, I am concerned, and I know that the vast majority of the industry shares this concern, that growers will no longer elect their own representatives, at least in some States, under the Government's legislation. Yet in the second reading speech the Minister was at pains to stress that he was the one relinquishing controls over marketing authorities. No matter how the Minister does his sums, the growers no longer appoint their majority on the Wheat Board. The Senate's decision to accept three Board members with special expertise does not provide a grower-selected grower majority, but rather a grower-selected grower equality. I call on the Minister and honourable members opposite to recognise the very valid request of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, endorsed by the Senate, by supporting the appointment of three specialists out of 10 rather than four out of 11 on the Board, as proposed by the Minister. Somewhere along the line there is some reason why there should be some negotiation on a matter of this character. It seems quite incredible that the Minister should be seeking four out of 11 rather than three out of 10, especially in view of the fact that the Wheatgrowers Federation, the representative of the wheat industry, has been prepared to have the Board numbers reduced from 15 to 10. The Senate has also accepted amendments to the criteria for the selection of the three members who have expertise in one area. I commend the Minister for accepting some of the amendments. The reference to finance and marketing is retained, but industrial relations is expanded under the amendment to incorporate the wider problems of handling and transportation under a new category, grain movement logistics. Other amendments have clarified the powers of the Selection Committee to appoint alternatives to Board members and changed a reference from the Australian Wheatgrowers Association to Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. A further amendment, to sub-section 33I (1), gives the National Farmers Federation President the option to nominate someone in his place to sit on the Selection Committee. Under the Bill in its previous form the President had no option but to sit on the Committee and it is most unfortunate that the Government did not adequately consult with him before inserting that provision in the Bill. The Opposition proposes to move an amendment in this House relating to the composition of the Selection Committee to improve further the voice of the growers in administration of the Wheat Board. This provision is sought by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and its constituent organisations. The Bill allows for a Committee of nine, made up of a presiding member, selected by the Minister, the Board Chairman, the National Farmers Federation President or his nominee, and one other NFF nominee, and five wheatgrowers nominated by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. My amendment retains the basic elements of the Selection Committee, but divides the five wheat grower members into two groups to perform the two quite separate functions of the Committee-to select the grower member of the Board from each State and to select the members with special expertise. There is a very good reason for introducing these changes, and the extra costs to the Board resulting from the changes would be minimal. Certainly, the longer term benefits would outweigh any such costs. The Opposition proposes, firstly, that in selecting those Board members with special expertise the Committee remain as constituted under this Bill, that is, with five AWF nominees. For the purpose of selecting the Board's grower member from each State, these five Federation nominees would be replaced by five nominees from the Federation's individual State affiliates. In the case of New South Wales, for example, the State grower member would be selected by a committee which includes five nominees of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales. As the Minister has stated, the Board deals with grower finances of up to $3 billion every year. It does not seem too much to be asking for each State to have a majority say in the appointment of its Board member. The Australian wheat industry is spread over a vast continent, and there will always be regional considerations in decisions affecting the national industry. It is unfortunate that the Australian Democrats have not joined the coalition parties on this proposal, although they have taken a commendable stand on the other matters I have raised. Beyond these amendments, there is a further matter on which I would seek the Minister's response. In the second reading speech by the Minister's representative in the other place, we were told that the Minister will determine-and the emphasis is on 'will determine'-selection criteria against which the Committee can assess the suitability of applicants. I prefer the interpretation set out in clause 10, page 4, line 10 of the Bill, which states that the Minister may determine these criteria. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this apparent contradiction of terms. To understand the importance of the Opposition's amendments it is necessary to understand the marketing framework in which Australia's 60,000 wheat growers participate. In 1983-84, $2.3 billion, or 88 per cent, of total earnings were drawn from international markets on the basis of figures recently presented in the Board's annual report. It is to the industry's great credit that this result has been achieved in spite of fast rising costs of production and a general decline in farmers' terms of trade. It is a result achieved without significant protection. While the manufacturing sector continues to enjoy an average rate of effective protection of 25 per cent, wheat growers operate in an environment of negative to about plus 5 per cent protection. The protection rate has been negative for about half the past decade. Therefore, let no one say that the rural industries are propped up by the generosity of other sectors of the economy. Not only has the wheat industry enjoyed little or no protection, but also it has competed on an extremely vigorous world market. As I have said, China and India are moving towards self-sufficiency. World wheat production has increased by 50 per cent in just 15 years. An efficient, aggressive Wheat Board is vital, not only to the industry, but for all Australians. So far in 1984-85, the current account deficit is $7.6 billion, which is $3 billion more than in the corresponding period last year. For the full year 1984-85, the current account deficit is expected to be about $11 billion, which is 30 per cent higher than for last year and 50 per cent higher than for 1983-84. Over 20 per cent of export revenue-over double the amount earned from wheat exports-will be required just to pay the interest on the foreign debt alone. To recover some of our economic lost ground, our nation must dramatically increase its export earning capacity. Rural industries, earning an average $8 export income for every $1 spent on rural imports, are a key element in this recovery. For wheat, as with so many other primary industries, the first step must be to raise our international competitiveness. In particular, we must focus on lowering farm costs, raising productivity even further than its already high levels, gaining access to the latest technology and developing efficient service industries including storage, handling, shipping and finance. I know that the Minister has placed a lot of emphasis on each one of those factors and I think he deserves some credit for it because they are the areas that must be concentrated on in the years ahead if this industry is to stay abreast of other producing countries. Clearly, Australia is a price taker on the world market with about a 14 per cent share of exports. We must look in the first instance to what we can do for ourselves to improve our competitive position. Only a fortnight ago another snap meeting of primary producers was called at Moree, one of the major wheat growing centres in my electorate of Gwydir, to express concern regarding government policies. It is yet another pointer to the increasing unrest among primary producers. This Government has done nothing about the concerns raised by the National Farmers Federation at the farm costs summit. It was a dismal failure. Great expectations were built up by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the election campaign about this farm costs summit, and frankly is was a disappointing fizzer. It met on two occasions but argued about the basis on which the National Farmers Federation had established the actual cost of protection that was being transferred to each family farm. Summit is hardly the word now that producers are sliding further down the slippery slope of declining terms of trade. Fuel costs were allowed to increase by 10 per cent within days of the last so-called summit. In the wake of devaluation, other costs are certain to rise, but are less likely to fall again if the dollar recovers. No industry is more affected by the price of fuel than the wheat industry. Since the Hawke Government came to office, fuel excise has risen by 56.6 per cent and fuel costs generally by 32.5 per cent. Then, of course, more recently country people, except those in extremely remote areas-have lost the benefit of the fuel freight subsidy-up to another 4c a litre. It is interesting to note that in the wheat growing belt in the Gwydir electorate, an electorate that I have the privilege to represent, every centre that has a subsidy on its freight for fuel has lost that subsidy as a result of the mini-Budget last week. The industry has been diddled with the reintroduction of the fuel excise rebate for off-road use. The Hawke Labor Government froze the off-road excise rebate for farmers in its 1983 Budget and of course caused an uproar. Since 1983 there has been a gap between the amount of excise and the level of rebate available to off-road users such as farmers, miners and foresters. In a sneaky fashion in 1983 the Hawke Labor Government increased the excise by 1.5c a litre and made it subject to automatic six-monthly indexed increases, but cunningly left the rebate unadjusted at 7.155c per litre for 18 months. The cost to farmers is estimated to be of the order of somewhere between $20m and $25m but worse still the gap has widened from the original 1.5c a litre because of the indexing of the excise. Today the gap is 2.3c a litre. Indeed, unless altered, the gap will continue to widen. We will seek to amend other legislation shortly to undo this sneaky travesty of justice. The other incredible injustice to wheat growers and country dwellers generally emerged in this week's mini-Budget where the fuel freight subsidy has been abolished, as I said earlier. The removal will add up to another 4c a litre on fuel costs, which is the third rise in fuel costs in two months. One would hope Labor members representing rural seats will screw the arms of their anti-rural mates to accept our amendments. This Government cannot even see its way clear to take the most obvious step to help the wheat growers, which is to abandon that wretched harvester tariff and replace it with an equally effective bounty costing 86 per cent less than the tariff. Another effect of tariffs and quotas on essential farm inputs-such as grain harvesters, farm machines, and chemicals for which there are no realistic substitutes-and sales taxes on other inputs, is to raise the price of those inputs to Australian farmers above world prices and consequently, to reduce our international competitiveness and farm profitability. Despite the Government's failure to date to take up these concerns of wheat growers, the industry remains willing to increase its contribution to research programs in order to help raise this competitiveness level. I note that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation presently has before the Minister a submission for an increase in the wheat research tax from 30c to 35c per tonne for the 1985-86 harvest. Here is a fine example of primary industries' self-help approach. Let us hope that the Government can respond to this request by the growers, by allowing them to raise their own contribution of $4.7m in 1984-85 towards their industry research programs. It is clear that the new Board should have a balance of expertise to confront the marketing challenges ahead. However, let there be no illusion. The coming years are going to be the most challenging ever faced by the Australian wheat growers. I think it is essential therefore to have a situation where they are able to appoint their own representatives and it is essential for them to have majority control. Not only has the green revolution arrived, but European Economic Community exports have quadrupled in seven years-now outranking Australia-and there are strong fears that subsidised credit to United States producers will also increase the pressure on Australia's export market shares. Recent changes, such as the granting to the Board of power to borrow overseas to finance the guaranteed minimum price show the need for ongoing expertise in specialist areas at the Board level. Of greater importance, however, is that the growers should maintain control over their statutory marketing authority. The Opposition believes that the amendments it is advancing will further enhance the changes made by the Senate and will work in the best interests of the industry. We hope the Government will give a positive and constructive response to the Opposition's and the Democrat's endeavours on behalf of the Australian wheat growers. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.30) —In rising to support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985 I must say that I always find myself a little astounded at the great love for bureaucracy which seems to emanate from the rural socialists on the other side of the House. I think it is self-evident to any thinking person that if one is to get efficiency in an organisation one really has to have a tighter organisation. I believe that anyone who attended the rural outlook conference in Canberra in January would have been concerned at the performance of the wheat seminar. I think that this was in stark contrast with the great professionalism that was exhibited by the Australian Wool Corporation. The attitude seemed to be-I think I can paraphrase the Chairman pretty accurately-one of: 'We have always sold the wheat in the past and if the growers produce the wheat we will sell it in the future'. Things are changing and they are changing very dramatically. Mr Ian Cameron —Are you attacking the Chairman of the Wheat Board? Mr CAMPBELL —I am saying to the wheat growers of Australia that they desperately need expertise. The job of wheat growers is to grow wheat as efficiently as possible. They need all the expertise that they can get to help them in this area. It is not just in the areas of finance and marketing that they need expertise. They need expertise in the areas of industrial relations, transport and co-ordination. Perhaps they need someone with expertise in barter trading, in respect of which the Australian Wheat Board has not had any experience so far. The wheat harvest had a gross value of just over $3 billion. Of that amount about $1 billion was used up in transport. This is a substantial amount. I am sure that there is room for a reduction somewhere in that bill. It is interesting to note that the only State that has had a reduction in real terms in the cost of transport of wheat has been Western Australia under the dynamic leadership of Julian Grill, the Western Australian Minister for Transport. It is also worth noting that Western Australia is, of course, a Labor State. Co-ordination is another area in which I think there is a lot of room for consideration. We hear a lot of talk from the Opposition about the high cost of tariffs. Of course tariffs are a very high cost and no one argues against that. One must look at tariffs in a historical context and just remember who institutionalised them. Of course, it was the National Party of Australia. The National Party bequeathed to the Australian farmer the very high cost of production that he has today. This cost was hidden for many years by the very high returns that wheat growers were getting. I would say that since those days the terms of trade have continued to run against wheat farmers. I would suggest that if we had a co-ordinated approach across the whole of Australia, there would be many things that the various wheat handling authorities could buy as a body to reduce cost. Just consider the number of front-end loaders that are used across Australia to handle the wheat crop. The number must run into hundreds. If they were bought on a uniform basis one would have a chance to go to Australian industry and say: 'Here is a product we want. We will give you this contract. Produce them for us at a competitive price'. Until we have in Australia industries which are competitive, we have no hope of dismantling tariffs on inefficient industries. Honourable members opposite can sit there and lament the mistakes that they have made until they are blue in the face, but until we have in this country a situation in which we have industries employing people and taking the place of those inefficient industries nothing will or can happen. It is interesting to note that the only Government which ever tried to do something about that was pilloried and crucified by honourable members opposite. This is something which is remembered by the thinking farmers in the community. I turn to barter trading. I am sure that there are countries to which we could substantially increase our sales of wheat if we were prepared to take something from them. For instance, Yugoslavia makes under licence a very good Cummins diesel engine which it cannot sell in Australia because of a licensing arrangement. But if Australia could purchase these diesel engines the cost of truck production in Australia would be substantially reduced. This would be of benefit to farmers. The money that we paid the Yugoslavs for the purchase of these engines would flow straight back to Australia in enhanced trade. I think that we will have to look at those areas because we are entering into a very difficult market situation. One of the other areas with which I must say I find myself very disappointed is the lack of productivity increases in wheat farming. We are just not getting the increases per acre that other countries achieve. There is no doubt that we do not get sufficient rainfall to produce massive increases. However, it is interesting to note that this year, for the first time ever in Australia, a 10-tonne per hectare crop was grown in Tasmania. That crop was grown on heavy clay soil which the local experts said was unsuitable. A farmer grew that crop with expertise directly imported from the United Kingdom. I think this foreshadows a change that is going to take place in Australia. It is a change with which the industry must come to grips. A movement from the traditional grain growing areas to the higher rainfall areas will have a traumatic effect on the wheat industry generally. If that is where productivity can be achieved, that is inevitably what will happen. It may be that we should have another look at plant variety rights. Maybe this is the way in which to improve productivity. All I am saying is that our record to date in this area is not good. Another area that should be looked at is the cost of fuel. There is no doubt that fuel costs are high. I am aware of that because my electorate is probably affected more than any other electorate. I was instrumental in getting incorporated in the Labour Party's policy the fact that fuel produced on the farm would not be taxed by a Labor government. In the United States of America ethyl alcohol based fuels are produced in large quantities at less than 20c a litre, which represents a dramatic reduction in cost. The farmers of Australia may not need actually to produce this product. If they go to the Government and say 'we have done the research and this is our intention' they would be in a much better position to negotiate some deal in respect of a reduction in fuel costs. I would have thought that such an initiative would be self-evident and could be taken. It is a matter about which I have recently written to the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia (Inc). Another problem that I see is with the mishmash of misinformations that is provided by many honourable members opposite. Members of the Opposition lament the high cost that farmers face. Of course costs constitute a real problem for farmers. The fact is that the cost of production last year rose by 6 per cent. Certainly, this significant rise cannot be sustained. However, it is half the average rate of the last 10 years. I would just like to read the figures into Hansard. The rate of increase in the price of farm inputs for 1984-85 is approximately 6 per cent, compared with an average rate of increase of 12.6 per cent experienced in the previous six years. The single most important step which the Government can take to help the rural sector is to manage the domestic economy effectively. This view is shared by the National Farmers Federation. The Government has been successful in this approach through such key policies as budgetary restraint and the prices and incomes accord. As a result, inflation has fallen from 11.5 per cent in 1982-83 to 5.1 per cent in the calendar year 1984. These figures are significant and all farmers will tell us how they are affected by these factors. There is no doubt that this Government has done much better than its predecessor did in this regard. There is no doubt that in the long run it is only a healthy economy that is going to make farming a viable industry. The devaluation of the Australian dollar has been very significant. It is this which has put a windfall gain into the pockets of farmers this year. Whilst we are applauded by some of the people opposite for this initiative, it is an initiative which they themselves were never prepared to take. I think it is recognised in Australia that we as a government are doing what is necessary. We are clearing the way and reducing bureaucratic interference to make it that much easier for farmers to survive in very difficult circumstances. Let us take the cost of superphosphate, a significant input. In 1977, the cost of a tonne of superphosphate as a percentage of the cost of a tonne of wheat was more than its cost against the first advance received last year. Yet honourable members opposite will interpret that fact by looking at the rise in the price of superphosphate in money terms and lamenting the difference. Most farmers, certainly thinking farmers, realise the facts but, of course, for many it is much easier to pick up the rhetoric of those opposite who purport to represent people in the country. One of the great dilemmas of this country-I have said this many times-is that Australia is a very urban place. The great majority of the population-about 92 per cent-lives in the cities, and there is bound to be a slanting towards the interests of city people. That slanting applies across the entire political spectrum. I believe that that is something that must be addressed, but it is not helped by the mindless rhetoric put forward by some of the people who sit opposite. I believe that it should be self-evident to anyone that there will not be any dramatic reduction in unemployment in this country unless there is a visible manufacturing sector. The trick is to make that sector self-sufficient and competitive in world terms, which means that we have to look at some of the new industries. I believe that without these there is no hope. Without these, I believe, there will be enormous and continuing pressure from the cities to increase costs. That, I am afraid, is a road down which the Argentine went and it is a road which I have no desire to follow. I ask members of the Opposition to take this risk very seriously and to try to be more constructive in their attitude and a little more honest in their interpretation of history. Then, hopefully, we will together be able to do something to enhance the viability of farming for the future. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(9.43) —I wish to start my remarks on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill by taking up a point that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made in his rejection of the amendments passed by the Senate. He mentioned that the structure he has proposed for the new Australian Wheat Board would be similar to or the same as that of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. Possibly, he proposes to have the same number of people on the Board but apart from that there are certainly some very major differences. I will point out a couple of them. There will certainly be no representation from each State on the Meat and Live-stock Corporation and one of the 11 members of the Board of that Corporation will be the Managing Director, who is selected by the Board but appointed by the Minister. So there is quite a difference between the two bodies. I hope that the Minister will recognise that point. I see that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is still here in the House. I guess that he is used to being the lone voice in the wilderness. On this occasion he was the lone back bencher in the House listening to his speech. While I agreed with some of the points that he made, I was interested to hear him talk about government bureaucracy. The whole point of the Opposition's amendment is to reduce the size of the Board, so I do not see how he can talk about our increasing the bureaucracy. The honourable member complained about the lack of increase in production per acre in the wheat fields over the last few decades. I must admit that I agree with him but I also take up a point that he did not touch on, that is, that we do not have plant variety rights in Australia. I know that plant variety rights in respect of wheat may be a long way down the track even if other agricultural industries get them. Nonetheless, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has raised a very important point. I hope that the Government and the Minister in particular will speed up the review of this industry. We seem to have one committee after another thinking about plant variety rights. When one comes up with a recommendation that recommendation goes to another committee for consideration. The whole matter is becoming quite a farce. The initial plant variety rights legislation was put on the table in 1981 or 1982, and we still do not have it in its final form. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie also spoke about farmers in the United States of America producing farm fuel for around 20c a litre. I must admit that I am amazed at that figure. I would be very interested to see how they do it. On most of the figures I have seen-I must admit that they were produced a couple of years ago-it was costing United States farmers 60c to 70c a litre, and as that was some years ago, I dare say that with the effects of inflation and so on the cost would be even greater. But, if the honourable member can find that solution, I think that every farmer in Australia will be rushing in to make his own fuel. Mr Peter Fisher —They have a greater cost problem than we have. Mr HAWKER —Exactly. I thank the honourable member for Mallee. In speaking to this Bill tonight, I wish to reinforce a few of the points already covered by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt). I think he has covered the whole ambit of the industry very well. I just remind the House that over 80 per cent of production from the wheat industry is exported. Wheat is the second largest export earner in Australia and it is expected that the value of exports this year will be in excess of $2.7 billion, which is over 20 per cent of our export earnings. There is no question about the wheat industry being an efficient industry. The February 1984 Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, said: Wheat production- that is in Australia- is one of the most efficient of all Australian industries. The level of assistance to the industry in recent years has been low (or even negative) and, except in occasional years of drought, the industry has continued to grow- This is a very significant point. It is important to remember that fact, especially in light of the fact that the current prices being received on the world export markets are, to put it mildly, fairly low. In fact, wheat prices have increased in real terms by only about 2 per cent per year over the last five years. It is interesting to compare that figure with the rise in farmers' cost. If we look at the terms of trade, that is, the ratio of prices paid to prices received we see that farmers' terms of trade have declined by 20 per cent over the same period. As to the outlook for wheat, the Bureau of Agricultural Economic paper presented to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in January this year stated quite clearly: World prices are expected to ease again by the middle of 1985. In other words, the outlook for wheat is very ordinary, working from a fairly ordinary level of prices. The problem facing wheat is a farm cost problem. I have already mentioned the fact that over the last five years there has been a decline of 20 per cent in farmers' terms of trade. I think it is important to note that some constructive suggestions have been put forward on how farm costs can be reduced. I refer to the National Farmers Federation submission to the Government on farm costs. We have already touched on the efficiency of the wheat industry. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers Federation, in its revised figures, is still talking of protection levels to secondary industry costing every farmer $9,000 per annum. The farm cost submission goes on to talk about specific ways of cutting these costs. One that it touches on in particular is fuel costs. Let us look at what has happened to the prices of fuel over the last month or so. First of all we have seen the effects of the devaluation and then, to top it all off, we have seen the Government removing the freight equalisation subsidy, which means that fuel costs in country areas will rise by up to 4c a litre. When we look at the way in which the Government very kindly removed the diesel fuel rebate for off-road users and then reimposed it without indexing it for three or four months, we realise that farmers now pay a hidden tax over and above all the others of over $25m a year, representing the difference between the road price of fuel and the cost that should apply if the fuel rebate were returned to off-road users. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie touched on freight and handling. There is no doubt that there is considerable room for improvement in efficiency and costs. I hope that the new Wheat Board, when it gets a right structure, will put more emphasis on trying to solve that problem. But in talking of the costs to farmers of protection and in particular of returns and levels of efficiency, I would be interested to read a short section of a speech. I think that the House may find this very enlightening. It states: . . . the overall level of assistance to rural industries is low by comparison with other sectors. A comparison of figures for 1981-82, the latest year for which comparable IAC figures are available, indicates that primary industry assistance is 9 per cent compared to 26 per cent for secondary industries. The speech continues to talk about discussions between the Government and the National Farmers Federation on farm costs. This is the part of the speech that is extremely important: . . . while there has not been agreement on the extent of this cost impost it is in the order of $6,000 to $9,000 per farm each year. This is significant given that average income per unit of family farm labour in 1983-84 has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at only $7,000 per year. In other words, depending on which level of figures one takes, support to secondary industry could cost each farmer more than he is getting in income each year. Mr Peter Fisher —He will get less now with the assets test. Mr HAWKER —The assets test is an added problem. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry for this statement. It is a very frank statement and I hope that many of his colleagues will read it. It provides a stark assessment of what is happening in primary industry. I turn briefly to the level of government involvement. It is very important for all honourable members to realise that although the Wheat Board is a statutory marketing authority and the Government provides 95 per cent underwriting of the guaranteed minimum price-that level of underwriting being worked out on the estimated market returns for the current year plus the returns in the two lowest years of the last three years-to date the Government has never had to pay out on its underwriting. That is a most important point. As I have said, the wheat industry is efficient. It has government underwriting, but that costs the Government nothing. However, it provides the industry with a considerable benefit. It provides security for the Wheat Board in its borrowing requirements for the first advance. With that sort of security the Wheat Board is able to obtain better terms and better rates. In the light of all these points, the question has to be asked of the Minister: Why is he so keen to take away grower control of the Australian Wheat Board? After all, the Board is grower funded; the industry is self-sufficient and it is not costing the Government anything-certainly not so far as the Board itself is concerned. There is grower involvement in the direct marketing of the industry. I hasten to point out to the Minister that the Opposition amendments still allow for three specialist members with the sort of expertise for which the Government is looking and which the industry would welcome. In fact, it already has it now. I suggest that if the Government is serious about helping the wheat industry, it should look at farm costs. I have touched on some of these costs, including fuel and freight. The major matter of which we keep reminding the Minister, but he appears to be rather deaf on this aspect, is the cost of wages. While he is keen to deregulate some sections of industry and to talk about deregulation of financial markets and the floating of the Australian dollar, we hear a deathly silence on the subject of deregulating wage costs. I note that the Minister is again saying that he will not accept the Opposition's amendments. I wonder what his reaction will be this time in the light of his reactions on the previous occasion when the Opposition decided not to accept the Government's structure for the Wheat Board. I refer to the speech made by the Minister on 4 October last year, when he said: But I remind the Opposition that this is a package of legislation and if it is held up growers will not be paid. Mr Peter Fisher —Blackmail. Mr HAWKER —I agree that was a form of blackmail. I wonder whether the Minister will threaten us again? Will he threaten the industry again as he was prepared to do on that occasion? Finally, I ask the Minister to accept the Opposition's amendments which were passed by the Senate. All the industry is asking for is grower control and I do not believe in the light of what I have said already that it is an unreasonable request. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.55) —I welcome the opportunity to participate, albeit briefly, in the debate on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. In the few comments I intend to make I wish to pick up a few points made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I felt it unjust of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to accuse either the Liberal Party or the National Party of participating in this debate in defence of the Australian Wheat Board. My intention tonight is not to defend the Wheat Board but the wheat growers. I take up the excellent point made by the honourable member for Wannon. The cruel reality for wheat growers across Australia is that they have seen a real increase in the price of their product of little more than 2 per cent for the last five years. No other industry in Australia has been asked to wear that sort of product price increase in the face of rising prices. Some employees use productivity gains as a means of assessing what their increase in wages should be. If the wheat growers of Australia were to make that calculation over some decades, we would discover that they currently should have wealth to rival the oil cartels of the Middle East. This is an industry in which growers have been prepared to put all into increasing their productivity. We have seen extensive wheat breeding programs, the astute application of fertiliser to enable the Australian wheat industry to grow and be more productive. It is easy, as all the farmers on this side of the House know, in the first two years after one has cleared a virgin patch to produce good crops, but it is in the succeeding years when the available nitrogen has been leached from those soils that it calls for great expertise to produce the crops one desires. It has been the capacity of Australian farmers to learn how to live with changed crop rotations, how to minimise nematode damage, how to maximise the plants available to them under the very minimal plant variety rights scheme we have in this country under the present wheat breeding program that has allowed them to keep up productivity increases. It is this same industry that has become increasingly productive in the face of successive droughts. It is this same industry that has been increasingly productive in the face of fluctuating seasons and all the unpredictability that characterises rural industry. This industry has lifted Australia out of the depths of our last depression. The industry has not been antagonistic to the Hawke Government. In fact, the industry has been remarkably forgiving of the Hawke Government in the light of the way that Government has attacked it. Mr Hawker —What about fuel prices? Mr ANDREW —The Government may not have intended directly to attack the industry but the result of being governed by a group of urbanised legislators is that what is most needed by rural industry is often forgotten. Under this Government we are faced with not only spiralling government costs and charges but also a prominence of government, an increase in the size of government. As the honourable member for Wannon said, we have faced increases in fuel prices so dramatic that in some areas the cost of fuel has risen by 12c a litre since the last sowing season. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr ANDREW —Up to 12c a litre-sufficient to make wheat growers hesitate to plant an additional area, particularly if they are borrowing the money to buy the fuel needed to plant that area. Tonight I say to the Government that this legislation is part of the frustration the Government is currently heaping on the wheat growers of Australia. If the Government chooses to ignore the amendments which will be introduced by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) that will be a further slight to the wheat growers of Australia. The wheat growers are not being immovably stubborn in their approach to the Government. As I said earlier, they have been exceedingly gracious. The Government, by this legislation, implies that the wheat growers cannot look after their own affairs. The Government, in fact, implies that if the Board's operations are handed over to the accountants, the economists, the computer professionals and the marketing and advertising tycoons the Wheat Board will be better run. We say that the Government really ought to be better aware of the simple fact that the farmers of Australia are already running multi-million dollar businesses. Those farmers who are the survivors in 1985 and who have continued to farm in the face of all the difficulties of the drought years are already running multi-million dollar businesses and making multi-million dollar decisions. Those farmers have already agreed to deny themselves luxuries the rest of Australia takes for granted in order to be more productive. They are the farmers who know what it costs to gear up with the machinery that is needed to be productive in grain terms in Australia today. They are the people who know that in order to run their farms effectively they have to be prepared to buy in advice. So the honourable member for Gwydir has appealed, and I support his appeal for the Board's structure to be so amended that the Board will be made up of three specialists out of 10 rather than four specialists out of 11. The Board will buy in the advice it needs to market the crop it has at its disposal. Furthermore, the honourable member for Gwydir has said that we need to expand the area of expertise to include not only finance and marketing but also grain movement logistics. I cannot too strongly support his stand in this area. What was it that so threatened the New South Wales wheat crop in the last harvest? It was the incapacity to move the grain as readily as it ought to be moved. The April 1985 issue of Australian Transport made this statement: Land transport ranks third behind production and shipping as the major cost to the grower. We need to recognise the enormous burden we will place on our wheat growers unless we are prepared to look at the land transport logistics we have in those areas of Australia where they are not as efficient as they ought to be. Furthermore, the honourable member for Gwydir on behalf of the Opposition has appealed for some greater flexibility in the composition of the Selection Committee. In fact, we have called for the appointment on the Selection Committee of five members from a State affiliate of the National Farmers Federation. Why did the honourable member make this appeal? Simply, it recognises that there are vast differences between the States, a fact that ought to be self-evident to the Government, a fact which is conspicuously apparent to everyone on this side of the House. Australia is a vast continent. There are enormous differences in the wheat producing areas. For example, the 10-year average of wheat grown in New South Wales is five million tonnes per annum. The 10-year average of wheat grown in Queensland is one million tonnes per annum. Because of the time constraints I do not wish to pursue the arguments I had originally intended to pursue, but I want to restate my point: The Opposition is tonight not defending the Wheat Board but expressing a vote of confidence in the capacity of the wheat growers of Australia to continue to manage their business ably, just as they have done in the past. They have been prepared to accept reduced representation on the Wheat Board. They simply seek the right to manage a board successfully, just as they are currently successfully managing their farms in the face of rising costs and falling farm incomes. This Government has been of no help to the wheat farmers of Australia. As the honourable member for Wannon skillfully outlined, we have seen cruel rises in fuel prices. We are seeing the farmers currently being denied plant variety rights. Yet, they continue to be successful. We want to see that sort of success have a majority voice on any future Wheat Board. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.06) —I support the amendments to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), which were so ably supported by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I recognise the value of the need to introduce a board to oversee Australia's wheat industry, a board that is smaller and quite possibly more manageable than the present Australian Wheat Board. However, I do not agree with the outcome of this change being made by the Government, which will, in effect, see the wheat growers of Australia lose control of the Board that manages their industry and their livelihoods. For this reason I support the proposed amendments because they will effectively restore control of the Board into the hands of the wheat growers. These amendments will still allow the Board to acquire the necessary expertise to manage such a large and important industry as the wheat industry. There is no doubting the argument that expertise is required on the Board. Certainly any industry that has a turnover of approximately $3 billion a year needs expertise. To deny wheat growers the ability to control their industry and, indeed, their livelihoods is just not acceptable. The appointed experts do not have the same accountability to the industry as do grower representatives. Grower representatives have not only a deep personal interest in the industry but also a far more first hand knowledge of its problems and needs than any appointed expert could ever hope to have. To take away from the Wheat Board the elected grower control would be to take away the accountability to the industry of that Board and, indeed, its members. It would run completely against the grain of the whole system of our democracy. If we as the elected representatives of the people to this Parliament found that we were not in the majority in the Parliament, not only would we be justly upset but the people whom we are elected to represent would also be justly upset. Mr Peter Fisher —They are now. Mr SHARP —That is right; they are. These amendments help to overcome that anomaly and yet still allow sufficient expertise to be made available to the Board. If the Bill goes through this House without these amendments being accepted the wheat growers will have received yet another slap in the face from this Labor Government. When one looks at the Government's track record in the wheat industry one can see that, indeed, it is a very sorry record. Let us just look at what has happened in the two years and a few months in which this Government has been in power. We have seen the price of fuel increase dramatically. It has increased by nearly 11c or 12c a litre in recent months. The price of fuel is a very important component of the wheat industry. Farmers are greatly affected by the cost of fuel and price increases take away their profitability. The Government has cut the 100 per cent depreciation on farm fuel storage. It has imposed a 15 per cent rise in tariffs on imported grain harvesters. To give a quick example of the effect that has had, two years ago a grain harvester was worth about $92,000. By the end of this year it will be worth about $165,000. The Government has reduced depreciation allowances. It has removed sales tax exemptions for oils and lubricants. It has cut the investment allowance. The Government's so-called farm cost summit was a complete sham. The arguments were ignored. The farm cost summit was purely and simply a political ploy used by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and members of the Labor Party during the recent election to try to curry favour with the rural sector, and it was shown in its true light in recent weeks when it completely and utterly collapsed. The Government is now wrecking any advantages to be gained from the devaluation of the Australian dollar by not discounting wage rises brought on by the devalued dollar. A lot is heard from the Government about how the depreciated dollar will advantage wheat growers, but that advantage is quickly being lost by the rise in the cost of fuel and of wages which will flow on through the various sectors of the inputs that farmers have to pay for. Of course, real interest rates are now higher than they have ever been. This was the subject of a matter of public importance so ably put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) in the House this afternoon. Real interest rates are at their highest level for the last 50 years. Real interest rates and interest rates in general are a most important cost component for farmers because farming produces once a year income. Farmers have to borrow money to keep going and, therefore, interest rates are very important to farmers. Yet we now have the highest real interest rates for a long time. Of course, the industrial disputation that has gone on in recent months is costing the farmers of this nation a fortune, not only directly by ships being left off our harbours without being able to receive deliveries of wheat but also indirectly by reducing Australia's reputation as a reliable exporter of primary products. That is where the real cost to our farming community will be seen in the future. That cost, while intangible, will be very real in future years. The list of what has gone wrong under this Government for the farming sector, the wheat industry in particular, goes on and on. All these disasters would be made a little more bearable if the price of wheat had gone up by a substantial amount but, as has been already put quite adequately tonight, the price of wheat has gone up by only 2 per cent over the last five years, and who on earth would accept that sort of rise with the sorts of cost increases we have experienced under the Hawke Labor Government? The reason it has not risen more is that the wheat industry is a price taker, not a price setter. For this very reason what this Government has done for the Australian wheat industry can be described only as a disaster, because the Government has increased the cost of production by its bungling, thus reducing wheat growers' chances of making a profit on their wheat to pay for the other overheads associated with running a farm. Because the wheat grower is a price taker, it is now even more important that growers have control over the Board that manages their industry. The Australian Wheat Board, in managing the industry's affairs, has great influence over the industry's costs of production. No person or even group of people can be more aware of the need to control costs of production than those people whose incomes and livelihoods depend upon controlling those costs. Mr Graham Peart, a highly regarded agricultural consultant, estimated in an article in the Land in September last year that wheat growers would be left with about $11 per tonne after the costs of production and government charges had been deducted. In fact, the cost of handling, storing and marketing wheat in this country has more than doubled in the last five years. Grain handling and rail freight charges now total about 40 per cent of the total cost of production. These costs of production have climbed dramatically and will continue to grow even more dramatically if the wheat growers lose control of their Board. The wheat industry is not in great shape, contrary to what some members on the other side of this House might think. However, if the industry is properly managed by people whose interests and livelihoods depend on it, it has a great future sufficient to go part way towards redressing the current account deficit which is growing at an alarming rate. Certainly the industry has a chance of putting this country back on the credit side of the ledger. Wheat growers are a hardy lot. They have learned to cope with droughts, floods, disease and disaster. Mr McVeigh —And the Labor Government. Mr SHARP —They have even learned to put up with a Labor government. But they have done it all on their own. If we do not support the foreshadowed amendments we will take away the wheat growers' right to determine the course of their own industry and indeed their own destiny. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.15) —in reply-In earlier remarks I said that basically the wheat industry has an agro-political problem. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) has just talked about controlling costs. If the wheat growers' federations and the various grower organisations had put all the effort into taking $1 billion off farm costs that they have put into keeping two people on the Australian Wheat Board they would have done the industry a lot more good. We are trying to clothe the Wheat Board with expertise and powers and to give the Board some sort of balance. The situation has changed; we have gone from the Board being financed by rural credits department funding into a highly competitive world where the Board is dealing in very sophisticated financial and marketing areas. Most of the comments from the Opposition were really about doing what the farmers want. I have said on other occasions that we cannot govern a country by doing what various groups want. Mr Gallagher wants us to do certain things. The unions want us to do certain things. The business people want us to do certain things. There comes a time when a government has to analyse the situation and take action. I remember that, with respect to the Australian Wool Corporation, poor old Sir William Gunn used to have flour pitched at him because the wool industry said that there could not be objective measurement or a restructured Wool Corporation-those sorts of changes. Now the Wool Corporation is regarded as one of the great triumphs among statutory marketing authorities. What the Government is doing for the Wheat Board is no different from what we did for the Wool Corporation. Sensible agro-politicians realise the wisdom of what the Government is doing. We are trying to be consistent about statutory marketing authorities, taking into account also the differences between the marketing and the financing of the various commodities being handled or sold. It is almost as if honourable members opposite have forgotten the onslaught on statutory authorities by the Liberal Party. Those opposite want to sell off Trans Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line, Australian National, the Australian Telecommunications Commission and all these sorts of things. A Senate committee chaired by Peter Rae from Tasmania wanted to establish accountability and ministerial responsibility and tried to get statutory authorities better under the control of the Parliament or the industries which they served. Most of my actions in this area, whether with respect to research or marketing, have been taken to try to put growers, the people concerned, on the spot and to move away from ministerial, day to day, hands-on activities. That is what we are all about. Really there is a need for balance on the Board. It still has a grower majority. There is a need to have a balance between the expertise on the Board and the expertise that the Board buys, as one honourable member put it. I will get on to that in a moment. The situation has changed. The old Board really had not been changed since 1946. The Opposition had let it get to such a state that there was on it a flour miller and a flour millers union representative. Because we exported flour in 1946 there was some sense in having those people on the Wheat Board. But we do not really export much flour now, and the Board has only one finance member. The problem was that more and more weight was falling on that finance member and the finance committee of three people. With the Government wishing to be consistent with respect to its dealing with the big statutory marketing authorities, the whole problem was with the wheat industry itself because it is quite clear that there is a need for State representation. If there was to be a board of manageable size the question was whether there should be 10 members or five. It was very hard to get an in-between decision without causing all sorts of problems because if any State got two representatives, by whatever calculation or organisation of numbers we arrived at, all the rest would have wanted two. That was the basic problem. The States are involved. It was either 10 or five. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has been put into the box seat in terms of the Selection Committee. It has to pick nine out of 11 people. I am even quite prepared to have to pick alternatives. The Wheatgrowers Federation, with which I have negotiated over the past year, could never really get away from the numbers on the Board. It could never see that the Board is a functional body, that it needs to act corporately. I was told: 'You can't have only one from each State because if one person was away overseas that State's interests would be overlooked'. I thought that was a nonsense in terms of my reading of Board minutes. I said: 'All right, you can have five alternatives if you want them and then each State will always be represented at any Board meeting'. Now that I have offered five alternatives the Federation concern has diminished. The next thing it said was: 'If there is only one we will not be able to report back to the industry'. That is why I set up the consultative mechanism for the Wheatgrowers Federation. It is the Wheatgrowers Federation's role, I think, to be a constructive critic of the Board and to represent the growers at that level. It now has a consultative mechanism rather than virtually owning the Board. One honourable member opposite said that of course we can always buy expertise. The big problem I face there, quite frankly, is that the Board is under the control of the Public Service Board with respect to the amount of money it can offer some of these people. Quite frankly while ever the Public Service Board does have that control we will not be able to buy the best expertise. Mr Peter Fisher —Why don't you change that? Mr KERIN —Why did not the honourable member's Government change it? There are problems. We are having an inquiry into it because the amount of money being offered by the very big statutory authorities is way below what can be offered in the private sector. Whereas the people opposite did not do anything about this situation, we are. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) asked about clause 10 of the Bill and referred to the fact that the word 'will' appears in my second reading speech. I draw his attention to the Bill itself and the fact that the word 'may' appears in proposed new section 33D (1) under clause 10. The honourable gentleman opposite raised quite a few questions which are very germane to the wheat industry. The big issue, as everyone knows, is the cost of fuel. I remind the honourable member that under the previous Government the taxation revenue on fuel went up by 300 per cent and the cost of fuel went up by between 130 to 160 per cent in the seven years of the Fraser Government. Honourable members opposite did not whinge then. Reference was made to the 2.3c a litre gap, but at least we did give that concession. Regarding the fuel freight subsidy, some members claimed that the 4c difference now in the fuel freight rate means that everyone will pay 4c more. I point out that that is simply not so. It depends on what level of fuel freight subsidy there was before. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) raised the matter of plant variety rights. While I might share his beliefs with respect to PVR when we talk about plant buying, as far as wheat breeding is concerned I think that those people who have concerns about PVR have a very legitimate case. At present nearly all cereal breeding is carried out publicly. We have organisations, such as the institute at Wagga, in which many people are involved in high level scientific work. If there is a problem at present with wheat breeds, it is because of the wheat breeding committees on which there is very strong grower representation. There is also the allegation that there is too much of a bread making representation on those committees. We are looking at these kinds of problems in terms of our research funding proposals. It is not really relevant to talk about PVR so far as wheat is concerned because we have a system of varietal control and registration. Marketing and handling are in the charge of the Wheat Board and the State handling authorities. So the combined questions of varietal control and segregations mean that the wheat industry itself controls very much the breeding and all aspects of what varieties and breeds will be released on to the market. So it is in the hands of the industry. PVR, if it came in, would have to go through that same system. I could talk at length about this because recently there was one privately bred variety that could not get through the State registration system. Some honourable members referred to yields in Europe. I point out here that most of those really high increasing yields are for feed wheat, where there is a very high level of fertilisation and high applications of chemicals due to excessive subsidisation. We could achieve that if we were going to produce rubbish wheat, but basically we go for baking quality wheats and high quality wheats at that. Of course, we have to use our fertilisers astutely, as we do. There has been some confusion about underwriting. I think the honourable member for Wannon said that it really costs the Government nothing. With the 1983-84 crop, at one stage the Wheat Board signalled to us that there would be a a payout of $189m. Then various elements in the international scene turned around and there was not a payout. I make this point only because there is a potential all the time for a big payout. It is terribly important to get 95 per cent gross underwriting, particularly because of the changed financial and financing mechanisms, the changed requirements, put on the Wheat Board. By having a 95 per cent gross underwriting we can still have access to all the world money markets at an A1-P1, rating. That is terribly important. The honourable member for Gilmore said that we have done nothing for the wheat industry. When we had Rural Credits Department finance, the previous Government halved the interest rate subsidy during the infamous razor gang days. By floating the currency, the Australian Government has actually given tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to the wheat indusrty. More importantly, by allowing the Wheat Board to borrow overseas, we have again saved tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars because we can borrow at lower interest rates overseas. Those two measures alone, in terms of what this Government has done for the wheat industry, should not pass unremarked. There are a few other matters which I could touch upon, but I think there has been a full debate. The Government is opposed to the amendments and will speak briefly on those in a moment. The Government will be moving an amendment in its own name to increase the representation, the expertise, from three back up to four. I thank honourable members for their comments. I thought that most of the comments were constructive, besides the usual level of political argy-bargy. I think that those people who represent the wheat industry in this House, or who have many wheat growers as their constituents, really do realise the question of fuel costs and the question of pressure on the industry to constantly increase productivity to keep up with the cost pressures upon them because they are particularly exposed on the world market. The recent news from the United States of America is also giving quite a bit of concern. This is something that I may inform the House of on another occasion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.29) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 10, page 6, proposed sub-section 33I (1), after paragraph (d) add the following word and paragraph: '; and (e) 5 wheat growers from each of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, nominated by the respective State affiliates of the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation.'. (2) Clause 10, page 6, proposed section 33I, after sub-section (1) insert the following sub-sections: '(1A) The members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (1) (d) shall not participate in the deliberations of the Committee or vote in respect of the nomination by the Committee of persons for appointment as members of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c). '(1B) The members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (1) (e) from a particular State shall not participate in the deliberations of the Committee or vote except in respect of the nomination by the Committee of a person as a member of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c) from that State.' (3) Clause 10, page 9, proposed sub-section 33R (3), omit paragraph (a), substitute the following paragraph: '(a) at least 4 members are- (i) in the case of deliberations of the Committee in respect of the nomination by the Committee of persons for appointment as members referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (c)-members referred to in paragraph 33I (1) (e); and (ii) in any other case-members referred to in paragraph 33I (1) (d).''. The purpose of the amendments is to give each State organisation affiliated with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation the right to select a State grower representative to the Board. The Bill in its present form makes provision for a Selection Committee of nine members. The composition has been dealt with during the second reading debate. Under the amendments proposed by the Opposition, the Selection Committee is to be divided into a core committee of four, plus five others-as I mentioned in my speech at the second reading stage-with the five to be varied according to the purpose of the Selection Committee. For the purpose of selecting the Board members with special expertise, the Selection Committee will remain in the form proposed by the Bill; that is, to select the members with special expertise. Five nominees from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation are to be added to the core committee. The change proposed by these amendments is that five grower nominees from the State affiliate organisation of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation be added to the core committee to select the grower member from each State. For example, in New South Wales the core committee plus five nominees of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association would select the grower member from that State. This might seem to be an around about way of doing it. In fact, it may seem a fairly lengthy, illogical process unless one understands the nature and structure of the industry itself. It is a very diverse industry with diverse organisations representing the wheat growers in the various States. The day may well come when the industry itself would be happy to accept what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has proposed in the legislation. However, I believe that the change he is seeking is far too great. I think it is far too much to expect the industry at this time to settle for the proposition he has submitted. The Opposition's amendments vastly improve the ability of each State to select its Board member. The industry jealously guards its right to select its representatives on the Australian Wheat Board, which after all is the body which has total control of the marketing of that product. On the whole the Australian Wheat Board has done an excellent job. I well remember the crisis that beset the Australian wheat industry in the late 1970s when quotas were introduced. Mr Kerin —Late 1960s. Mr HUNT —The late 1960s, rather, and early 1970, when there was a mountain of wheat around the world. There were great stockpiles both here and overseas. There was great concern both within the then Government and outside it that the Wheat Board had very little hope of making sales against the competitive elements in the United States and elsewhere. The truth of the matter is that the Australian wheat grower representatives on that Board did a tremendous job. They displayed enormous zeal and dedication to their task. They gradually secured new markets around the world and were able to dispose of the mounting stockpile of wheat in Australia. Acceptance of the amendments would ensure that each State would have a majority say in the selection of its grower member whereas the Bill in its present form ensures that each State has a minority voice. It is not unreasonable to ask that the States have a clear voice in appointing their representatives to the Board. This becomes all the more important given that the selected grower members will no longer have a majority voice on the Board. I think that is very important. I also make the point that the Australian wheat industry is spread over a vast land mass. There are and always will be regional considerations to be voiced at the Board level. This is why the Australian industry fought so hard to try to retain that membership of two from each State on the Australian Wheat Board. I feel that the Minister has pushed the Australian industry further than he should have dared. I really think that there is merit in his overall proposal, but to try to push growers from a Board level of 15 down to 11 in the way in which he has done is really to test his skill in handling what is a fairly delicate situation for a very important industry. It is an industry that will not be walked over. Governments have tried that in the past and failed. It is one of the most militant industries in Australia when stirred up. The Australian wheat growers are a very vibrant force in the Australian community. I think it is very important not to upset growers unnecessarily by rushing them into a situation in which they feel that as a result of this legislation they will lose their majority of grower selected members on the Australian Wheat Board. It is absolutely imperative that the Australian industry have an effective, flexible Board which fully reflects the needs of the various States, apart from a Board having the expertise available to it under the amendments I have moved, which would include three representatives out of 10 with special expertise. There can be too many experts at any meeting. Having too many experts can bring about conflicting views, conflicting attitudes and very often cause more confusion than progress. I think those five practical grower members to be selected to that Board need to be totally representative and seen to be so by the various States. These amendments have the support of the industry. I strongly commend them to the Minister and to honourable members opposite. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.35) —I rise to support the amendments. Nobody is more concerned with the grower representation component of the Australian Wheat Board than the Western Australian industry. It will always be that the Western Australian section of that industry will have a feeling of being terribly remote from decisions taken in this part of the world. Nothing was felt to be more so in this regard than the decision this year of the Australian Wheat Board to centralise its payments to wheat growers in Melbourne, whereas previously payments had been made on a State by State basis from the grain handling authorities. Let us hope that situation will not be repeated. However, this year was a disaster with people waiting literally months for their payments at a time when they were very severely strapped for cash. In fact, many of them found themselves having to renegotiate loans which they fully anticipated paying in the normal way. To save time in this debate it may be in my interests to add a few words concerning the proposed amendment of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I promise not to stand to speak again on that subject. The reality of what the Minister now proposes to reintroduce by way of an amendment is a return to the original Bill as introduced in the Senate. The Bill proposed an Australian Wheat Board built around five grower members, a grower but Government appointed Chairman, one straight out representative of the Government and four other members each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or industrial relations. That has since been amended to provide for three other members each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics. The Minister may, in introducing his amendment, try to tell the House why that fourth member was needed, when clearly and obviously that fourth member was intended to be a trade unionist. The Australian Wheat Board does not have a great deal of association with the work force. The Minister is well aware that grain handling is undertaken by the State grain handling authorities. They are the agents for the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is a body which employs substantially fewer people, and certainly people who generally are concerned with industrial relations. These people have more of an executive capacity. The Wheat Board is a marketing organisation. It could be said that the Wheat Board never sees a grain of the wheat it actually sells. There is no need for that. That is handled by another group which clearly needs industrial relations expertise, which, of course, it employs. If the State governments which have some control over the grain handling authorities choose, no doubt they could introduce industrial relations expertise at that level. However, there is absolutely no need in the make-up of the Board for that fourth person to be put there. It is no wonder that the grower organisations are suspicious of that proposal. I can only assume that the instructions came from the place from which the instructions for the tax package will eventually come and from the place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and others get their instructions each day-the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is totally inappropriate to introduce this type of requirement into legislation relating to the Wheat Board. In other words, we should remove that totally unnecessary fourth person who certainly would not be there to advise the Board on any of its activities because that person, as I have pointed out, is not involved in that field. If a person of that capacity is not needed, why is the Government so determined to maintain the numbers at four? Admittedly, that gives the Board an odd number. However, I doubt sincerely whether there would be many occasions when the Board would be split five-five on a decision. I do not think it is a board that operates in that way. An even number of members would be all right. Presumably, in those circumstances, an additional vote would be available to the Chairman or he may not vote at all and that would bring it down to a four-five situation. All in all, there is no good argument against having an even number of members on the Board. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to introduce somebody who has industrial relations expertise to assist the Board in the way it functions. It is not in that business. We ask ourselves: What is the Government on about? Unfortunately, it leaves me with the conclusion I have outlined. In all of this the Minister is at pains to keep telling us how he arrives at wanting to do all of these things. The Minister has correspondence from me which goes back quite a way. It suggests that I have never opposed the idea of reducing farmer membership on the Board to five. That has never worried me. I can see that there is a saving in that particularly when one has to fly people all the way from Western Australia, provided there is a representative from each State on the Board. I understand that the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gywdir (Mr Hunt) ensures that that is the case. There are considerable reasons why that should occur. At the moment growers in my electorate are deeply concerned at the cost burden that the inefficiencies and the industrial relations problems of the New South Wales grain handling system are imposing on them. Obviously, each State has some problems about the activities in other States; so all States want to be represented and that must be assured. Once we have achieved that I see no reason why the number of representatives on the Board need not be five, provided we remember that the Wheat Board is a grower organisation. Clearly, it will be greatly assisted by financial and marketing expertise of a special nature. I have said before in this place that quite often farmers in running their small local co-operatives have really tried, as farmers, to run a grocer's shop when they would have been better leaving it to the grocer. All of those are good reasons but they do not take away the fact that the grower must have the final say. It is his money. If he is prepared to elect people to represent him in handling that money, and they do it badly, that must rest with him. It is not proper for the Government to interfere. The Government might say that it needs to protect the situation because of its guaranteed minimum price commitment. However, that is well down the track. The guaranteed minimum price commitment only protects growers from a dramatic decline in price. A gradual decline in price, of course, does not help them at all. The Government has, through its fully appointed member, a watchdog. The rest of the membership on the Board should represent the people who go out in the paddock, put crops in the ground and for that privilege pay the Government substantial amounts through fuel taxes. Of course, they take all the risks after the Government has collected the tax. That is not the situation that is needed. Those people, having taken that risk, should be entitled to have the final say in how their crops are marketed and they should have control even over the selection of the other members of the Board. But provided they have a majority on the Board, I see that as a satisfactory arrangement. I support the amendments of the Deputy Leader of the National Party and I strongly oppose the amendment that the Minister will move to try to change something that the Senate has already decided would be much more in the interests of Australian farmers, that is, that each of the three members on the Board has extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics. That is a function in which the Board should interest itself. It has certainly experienced problems in that regard in recent times. The other day I was in Newcastle where the Chamber of Commerce Inc. drew to my attention- Mr Hodgman —With me, too. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I was with the honourable member for Denison. The two of us were very impressed with what the Chamber of Commerce told us about how it would assist the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales to get out of its problems. I am not an expert in that field; I could not say that its proposal is an excellent one but I do hope that the Minister is aware of it. The Chamber of Commerce referred to the area of the basin coal loader where it is believed that in 16 months and for something like $30m it could achieve what will be done in Port Kembla in four years for a couple of hundred million dollars, a substantially larger amount of money. Although the Chamber did not say that it wanted this as an alternative to Port Kembla-it was quite happy for the State Government to spend its money in Port Kembla if it thought it could create some jobs, or whatever its intention was-the Chamber did point out that it could give an answer immediately to the very difficult position of grain handling in New South Wales, particularly to the fact that it would be even closer to the farmers and would have better and more immediate transport arrangements. I take this last minute to draw that to the Minister's attention. He might choose to answer it. An amount of $150m a year is a huge cost to apply to the industry because of the problems of handling the crop in New South Wales. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.46) —I rise to record my support for the amendment moved by the coalition through the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and also for the amendment supported by the Senate. I believe that the remarks of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in regard to his reasons for changing the Australian Wheat Board are totally irrelevant, although I accept that his diagnosis of the problems within the industry is relevant. I suggest to him that he could devote more of his time to removing some of the existing problems that could be solved by government, such as our freight costs and fuel costs, and even the arguments that have been put here tonight in regard to productivity. I believe that the grower membership of the Australian Wheat Board in my area is simply an act of faith. I represent an electorate responsible for some 60 per cent of all wheat and grain grown in the State of Victoria. It is in the Mallee-Wimmera region of my electorate that the first moves were commenced to bring about the Australian Wheat Board. I believe that over the years it has provided a very stable base for the marketing and handling of what is now Australia's largest primary industry. The Board has been most successful, and I am disappointed that by inference the Minister has suggested a lack of expertise and even some negligence in relation to the activities of the Board. I believe that quite the opposite is the case; that the Australian Wheat Board has shown very astute financial management. In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that if some of our State governments had shown the same sort of financial management in relation to some of their borrowings overseas in recent years as the Australian Wheat Board has shown, this country would be in a far better position. Mr Hawker —What about the State Electricity Commission of Victoria? Mr PETER FISHER —I am referring to all those sorts of borrowings that have been made by statutory authorities that are controlled too strongly by government. I believe the Minister gave support to the argument against his argument when he talked about the Wheat Board acting as a consensus organisation. This is the reason why I would not have changed in any way the representation of two growers from the States. I believe it is because we have two growers from each State, who are able to travel around their State constituencies and talk to growers and discuss problems, that we have had consensus in this very large organisation. One of the problems I see with the structure now proposed by the Minister is that we will not have the same sort of representative body that we have had in the past, we will not have the same sort of contact with the people out there in the field, and I do not believe we will have the same sort of consensus and support for the decisions made by the Australian Wheat Board in the future as we have had in the past. I had a very good opportunity in the second reading debate to go into the finer details of the problems of the wheat industry and the changes to the Board. I am disappointed that the Australian Democrats in the Senate did not give support to the coalition for our amendment which would have ensured that grower representatives are appointed by State based selection committees. I believe this is absolutely essential. It is a very diverse industry and we have already heard about the diversity of production but there is a massive diversity in quality as well. This also has to be attended to by people who know what they are talking about and who can act in a representative fashion. I feel that the changes we are discussing here and the changes we will next be discussing in relation to the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill show that the Minister has been inconsistent in his actions. Membership of the Wheat Board will be reduced in number to bring about grower control and we will see membership of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation increased in number to bring about grower control. Just last week we discussed in this place the formation of the Australian Sports Commission, which will be funded totally by taxpayer's money, unlike the rural boards which are financed out of levies imposed on the industry. There was a massive Commission and a massive number of sportspeople were introduced on to that Commission. I believe that that just points to the inconsistencies of the Government. I can in no way support the changes to the Board that have been proposed by the Government. I believe those changes will bring about a great deal of inconsistency of decision. They will allow the Government to take decisions in relation to the wheat industry that are more for the benefit of the economic ways of the Government than for the betterment of the industry. I ask the Minister to accept the amendments that have been moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and supported by the Senate. I believe that in the long run these amendments will result in greater stability and will continue the sort of stability the wheat industry has had for so many years, a stability that has proved to be of so much value not only to the growers in the industry but also to the consumers throughout Australia. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.51) —I rise tonight to support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), in response to concern shown by the people in my electorate, particularly those wheat growers out in the Dawson Valley area who contribute quite a lot to the economy of that area. The wheat growers of Australia have shown great expertise in the handling of their markets in the past. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that what is required is a balance of skills so that the Australian Wheat Board has appropriate expertise to provide overall direction to Board staff so that commercial advantage is maximised and risks minimised. He went on to say that the potential for error was great and that the Government wished to reduce risk in the growers' interest. I think that suggests that a Board that is comprised chiefly of wheat growers is not capable of carrying out this work. I believe that any board, if it requires expert opinion on any matter concerning its industry, ought to be able to co-opt those types of persons to provide the information it requires on which to make its decisions. The inefficiencies, if any, we have found in the wheat industry are in the handling, storage and movement of stocks, as witnessed in New South Wales when those groups who were handling and moving wheat were unable to get stocks on to ships. I believe that efficiency would be maintained by giving the overall control of Wheat Board decisions to the representatives of the industry. I do not believe that the Government should be intervening to the extent that it is in many of our primary industries. I believe that what we have seen with the dairy industry and will see now with the wheat industry could flow through to other primary industries in Australia. In that regard I think that this Government is showing that its main concern is to have control of all those industries. In the past it has shown that it is very difficult in Australia to nationalise any industry, but if the Government can at least get control of those boards and of primary industries throughout Australia, it will be able to introduce measures based on its philosophies that would not otherwise be accepted by those boards or by the growers. The wheat growers of Australia are concerned about the actions the Minister is taking in wrestling control from them in the formation of this Wheat Board. I fully support the amendments that have been put forward by the honourable member for Gwydir in his shadow ministerial portfolio. I ask that the Minister give due consideration to the fact that the wheat growers of Australia have the necessary competence, experience and expertise, and any outside help they might require would still be available without those people being placed on the Board. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.54) —I will be very brief in supporting the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I say to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that I think he is being a little inconsistent. He talked about having five grower members, one from each State. Having said that, he is now not prepared to allow each State to have the say in selecting that member. I do not see the logic in that statement. I think it is quite logical. If we say that each State will provide a grower member, what the Deputy Leader of the National Party has asked for is quite reasonable. I hasten to point out that the selection board as proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party will not exclude the national interest because it will still have on it the Chairman of the Wheat Board and two nominees of the National Farmers Federation, including the President. On both counts, the amendments as moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party are logical ones. The Minister ought to look at the amendments again because they really are sensible. If we want each State to be represented, who would be best equipped to pick the right person from a State? Obviously it would be the people who have had contact with such a person. I thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak, and I support the amendments. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.56) —The Government rejects the three amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I will go through them quickly. Amendment No. 1 deals with the State satellite committees' concept. This would really involve 54 people in the selection of nine Australian Wheat Board members from five States. Anyone could see that this would be a costly and administratively unwieldy action to take. It is unrealistic to expect high calibre people to serve on the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee under the circumstances. It could be expected that under the Government's proposal the selection of five Australian Wheatgrowers Federation nominees would be strongly influenced by State affiliates of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. To put it quite frankly, as I put it to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation annual conference in Coolangatta, the same names have been coming up for many years. It is not as though we will get any surprises. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the industry to put up each person it wants by State. I would be stunned if, for example, the Livestock and the Grain Producers Association did not virtually select the person in New South Wales. The second amendment provides for five State growers to nominate that State's grower member on the Board, while five AWF nominees nominate only members with special qualifications. That is inconsistent with the concept of the Selection Committee and militates against the best appointment being made. Under the Government's proposal growers would have the majority in all nine Board positions. Under previous legislation growers selected only growers. I really am putting the growers right in the box seat. The third amendment refers to the need for four grower members to constitute a quorum, and it is a consequential amendment. I shall reply very briefly to a few other points raised by honourable members in this debate. It was stated that the Wheat Board was doing a good job. No one has said that the Wheat Board has not done a good job, but the point is that the conditions have changed. I have gone through that argument ad infinitum. I have talked about the scope for risk and the danger of making a mistake. The Government is trying to represent the growers rather than the aggro-politicians. I want people to focus on the functioning of the Board. One cent in the dollar gives a change in pool returns of $2.13 per tonne. A change of one per cent in interest rates can give $1.25 per tonne. We are dealing with very fine margins indeed and that is why I say that we need a balance of skills on the Board and in the Boards professional membership. If one group is being more dominant than the other, part of the argument falls away. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised quite a few matters. I trust he did so in a constructive sense. He spoke about Western Australia. The fact is that Western Australia and South Australia are reasonably relaxed about what I am doing; New South Wales and Queensland have been the problem. The honourable member pointed to some alleged payments disasters. There were 10 growers on the Board all this year and that problem still happened. So it is not as if it is magic to have 10 growers on the Board. The honourable member then took me up on the question of suspicion surrounding the appointment of industrial relations personnel to the Wheat Board. We do not take instructions from the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation but we do discuss matters with them. When we reformed the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, one person we appointed to the Corporation had industrial relations experience. The appointee turned out to be David Trebeck. He is not actually a wide-eyed, leftie unionist, if that is what the honourable member is worried about. Reference was made to the New South Wales situation with respect to the handling of wheat. I worked for over a year in the grain marketing section of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and one of the very strong impressions I had was that the New South Wales Grain Elevators Board, as it was then known, was totally under grower control and that was half the reason for all the problems that it had and for the continuing legacy of those problems. The Grain Elevators Board was run like a country council which ensured that everyone got his silo along his railway line, rather than everyone looking at grain handling and marketing over all. Mr Hunt —It seems to be worse then ever now, John. Mr KERIN —It is not making much progress-I will concede that. I think all wheat growers, and I would hope wheat grower organisations, would take a lot more notice of that situation in New South Wales because it is quite intolerable. Once we get remuneration agreements with each State the cost that falls on New South Wales growers will be even larger than it is at present. Finally, I wish to respond to a point made by the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). All I can say is that he is having fantasies. I am not interested in control, as Mr McLeod, the newly elected President of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, alleged once. I am really interested in putting growers in the box seat, and that is what the Government is doing with respect to its amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Hunt's) be agreed to. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes 61 Noes 74 -- Majority 13 -- AYES Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F. Beale, J. 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 Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. E. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. 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. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. NOES Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, Leo Cohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, F. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, Allan Duffy, M. J. Morris, Peter Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E, J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. PAIRS Robinson, Ian Mildren, J. B. Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G. Blunt, C. W. Dawkins, J. S. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.09) —I move: Clause 11, page 10, line 16, omit '3', insert '4'. This amendment simply increases the number of members on the Australian Wheat Board with special expertise from three to four. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.10) —The Opposition does not accept the Minister's amendment. If passed, the amendment would ensure that the grower-selected grower members of the Australian Wheat Board constituted a minority voice on the new Board. At present the grower-selected grower members have a clear majority, with 10 of the 15 Board members. This legislation is about grower-selected grower member majorities. I stress that the Opposition and, indeed, the industry do not oppose the reduction of the Board structure from 15 members to 10, but we are concerned to ensure that the grower-selected grower members maintain at least a majority on the Board. It should be made very clear that the industry has taken a very constructive, very positive role in the negotiations over the new Board's structure. I would have thought that the Minister would take the initiative himself rather than leave it to this Parliament to amend his legislation. The industry sought retention of its 10 grower members in the first instance but has been prepared to accept the five grower-selected members proposed by the Minister. The least the Government can do in return is to give the grower-selected members a majority voice. That has always been a principle of the Australian Wheat Board. I think it is extraordinary that the Minister, having taken the industry to this point, having got the industry's concurrence in reducing the size of the Board to one representative from each State, has not been able to see his way clear to ensure that there is a grower-selected grower majority on the Board. It is all very well to say that there is a grower majority on the Board, but that is not the same as having a majority of grower-selected members. This is what the issue is all about. The Livestock and Grain Producers Association and the Victorian and Queensland wheat growers will be very unhappy if the Minister does not come to the party on this issue. I think he is running a great risk of undoing some of the good work that he has done with primary producer organisations through being bloody-minded. I do not say that in any swearing sense but to describe him as being rather pig headed on this issue. I think it is high time that the Minister faced up to his responsibility of looking after his constituency, which happens to be the farmers of Australia. I appeal to the Minister to do the decent thing by the wheat growers in the electorates of Mallee, Gwydir, Riverina-Darling, Groom, Moore and Forrest. If he does not he will have the wheat growers marching up and down outside this building really upset with him. I think the Minister ought to do the fair and decent thing rather than try to slap the growers in the face. They have had to come to the Opposition, and to the Australian Democrats in another place, to try to exert some pressure to ensure that they get a grower-selected grower majority on the Australian Wheat Board to be responsible for the sale of their product. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Kerin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. 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 Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Blunt, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrew) —The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) questioned earlier this evening the allocation of the continuous broadcast of the proceedings to the Senate today. The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has determined that, while the sitting arrangements of both Houses are currently observed, the broadcast would be allocated between the Houses as follows: Monday-Senate Tuesday-House of Representatives Wednesday-Senate Thursday-House of Representatives Friday-House of Representatives The normal two week sitting cycle has been extended this week so that this is the third continuous sitting week. However, for the practical purposes of allocation of the broadcast it had been decided that the broadcast days would remain as determined by the Committee. Consequently, Monday is a day on which the Senate is broadcast continuously and Question Time in the House of Representatives was re-broadcast. The sign in the House of Representatives chamber which indicates that proceedings are being broadcast was illuminated for the purpose of the re-broadcast of Question Time today. It was left on in error after Question Time finished, even though proceedings at the time were not being broadcast live or recorded for re-broadcast. Consideration resumed from 15 May. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Pages 1 and 2, clause 3, line 11 (page 1) to line 37 (page 2), leave out of the clause. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.24) —I move: That the amendment be disagreed to. The Government's main purpose in introducing the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill 1985 was to provide for the number of specially qualified members of the Corporation to be increased from two to four. As previously stated, the Government decided to make this change because of the increasing complexity of international marketing of dried fruit, and in line with its objective of enhancing the effectiveness of statutory marketing authorities. The Senate has negated this essential thrust of the Bill by deleting clause 3 which would have substituted the new membership structure for that existing at present. The effect of the Senate's action, if accepted, would be to maintain the present membership structure of the Corporation, depriving it of highly desirable additional in-house expertise. The Opposition in moving for deletion of this clause stressed that, in 1978 legislation establishing the Corporation, it had reduced membership on the Corporation's predecessor, from 12 to eight to help contain costs. It noted that the Corporation is financed by a levy on the growers and said that, if membership were increased from eight to 10 as the Bill proposed, the growers would lose control. The Australian Democrats support the idea of providing the Corporation with additional expertise but feel strongly on the point of ensuring grower control of commodity marketing authorities and fear that the membership structure proposed in the Bill would lead to bureaucratic control. I believe that the concerns expressed by the Opposition and the Democrats in the Senate in regard to the so-called loss of control by growers over the affairs of the Corporation stem from a misunderstanding of the situation and can be demonstrated to be quite unfounded. I will explain my reasons for this view shortly. However, first, I would like to address the Opposition position that addition to the Corporation's strength is unjustified because of the additional costs involved. Over recent years the international market environment for dried vine fruit, like many other products, has become increasingly competitive because of greater government intervention in markets and technological advances. The most striking illustration of intervention is the European Community's production assistance policies and the regulation of the terms of access to its market since Greece entered the EC in 1981. The EC market accounts for half of the annual world trade in dried vine fruit. Also, competitiveness is increasing through technological advances which provide for improved volumes and quality of fruit for example, the ability to reconstitute and sell weather-damaged fruit which previously could not be sold. These factors present greater challenges to the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, which is charged with the commercial role to promote and control the export of Australian dried vine fruits. To meet this challenge it is essential for the industry's sake that the Corporation be able adequately to meet the spectrum of commercial demands placed upon it. The Corporation membership is already strong in skills related to dried vine fruits in terms of production, processing and, to an extent, marketing. The existing two specialist positions have traditionally been filled by industry packers. However, the infusion of two additional members from outside the industry with specialist skills in areas such as finance and marketing would inject fresh insights into the issues confronting the Corporation and would considerably broaden the experience and expertise within the Corporation membership. This would strengthen the Corporation decision-making base. When we look at the difficulties confronting the industry and the heavy dependence which the industry has on exports, I believe the relatively small additional costs to the industry will prove to be fully justified. I stress that the two additional members would not be bureaucrats. They would be chosen, after consultation with the Corporation, from highly qualified, experienced persons whose professional ability is recognised within their commercial fields. I will now return to the question of grower control. There has never been grower control of the Corporation. In numerical terms there are four grower members compared with four other members, one of whom is the independent Chairman who has a casting vote. However, since the establishment of the Corporation, there has been a numerical superiority of industry members. The provisions in the enabling Act are that the four growers members are chosen from Australian Dried Fruits Association nominees and that the ADFA is to be consulted before the two other specialist members are appointed. As a consequence of the latter requirement, the two other members have in all cases been packer members of the ADFA. So it is a hat-swapping exercise. The Government's proposal would not remove industry control. The proposal would ensure that the industry, through the ADFA, would continue to have a direct influence on the appointment of six of the 10 members by way of nomination and consultation. The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation would be consulted in regard to appointment of the other two specialist members. I urge the Opposition and the Democrats to recognise that the Government's proposal, to improve the effectiveness of the Corporation in an increasingly difficult world market, is in the best interests of the industry. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.29) —The Senate has returned the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill 1985 with an amendment. The Bill has been changed by the deletion of clause 3, which was intended to amend section 15 of the principal Act by constituting a new Corporation Board. The present Board has a membership of eight. The Government sought to increase it by two people but the Senate has refused this request. The additional two Board members were to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry and would have had a background in finance, commerce and marketing. In 1978 the Liberal-National Party Government reduced the membership from 12 to the present eight in order to streamline operations and reduce costs. It is quite illogical for the Government to be arguing on the one hand that the industry needs to contract its production against a world market oversupply and yet, on the other hand, moving to increase the size of the Corporation. Of course, since the Government said that, there has been an upturn in the world market situation due to a bad crop in, I think, Greece and Turkey. The international market scene for dried fruit is not as bad as people thought it might be. On 8 May I stated that it would be disappointing to producers if they were no longer to have an equal say over their marketing arrangements. As with the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, I agree that the world market situation is changing rapidly and demands specialist expertise on the Industry's marketing body. This should not be an excuse to wrest control from the growers. They are the ones responsible for production of the annual $60m to $120m worth of dried vine fruits. They are the ones who should have a dominant say in the work of their Corporation. As with the wheat industry, the dried vine fruits growers are prepared to accept an equal voice on their board. This, of course, has been the situation with the Corporation since the last changes were made. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) should accept the need to retain a strong grower voice and at least retain a proper balance or weighting for growers on these boards. With regard to the other Senate decisions, I express regret that the Australian Democrats were unable to join the Opposition in its proposed review of the equalisation payment limits in 1988. With regard to the Bill now before the Committee the Opposition endorses the amendment proposed by my parliamentary colleagues in the other place and calls on honourable members opposite to endorse that decision, particularly in view of the absence of proper and meaningful discussion between the Minister and the Australian dried vine fruits industry. If there had been consultation on this and other legislation many of the Government's amendments, let alone the Opposition's and the Democrat's amendments in the Senate, might have been avoided. The legislation presented to Parliament over the past fortnight has been marked by a lack of consultation. This is a very sloppy way to deal with important affairs of state, in those very important rural industries that provide so much economic substance to the Australian economy. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.33) —I support the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), in the views he expressed in relation to the Government's action on the amendment that has been moved in the Senate. I point out to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that in relation to the numbers on the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation he was acting once again without consultation. He has been very inconsistent in the action he has taken in relation to a number of the rural boards we have been discussing. I point out to him that this industry is different from the wheat industry when we are arguing about the number of people on the board who are involved in the industry. The dried fruit industry is, in fact, two industries. It is made up of growers and packers. In arguing that there should be grower-controlled representations we are of course referring to the total industry, which includes growers and the packers, who are so important to the success of the dried fruit industry. The representation on the Corporation is the least of my problems in relation to the changes the Government has made with regard to the dried fruit industry. I am more concerned about the fact that in the underwriting changes we are including in the scheme only the one variety of sultanas. We are not including currants and raisins. It seems to me to be a most undesirable feature of this new legislation to include only one variety of the dried grapes and not all the varieties that are produced. The area that is of most concern to me is the way the Government has treated the equalisation levy situation. I believe that in this area the Government is, like the Australian Democrats, playing politics with the industry. I refer the Committee to the speech the Minister made in the second reading debate on the dried fruit industry. Unfortunately, he very clearly showed the intent of the Government on this issue. He gave an example of what he expects to happen to the prices of dried vine fruit on the domestic market. In that debate we pointed out the harshness of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill and the harshness of the adjustment that will take place particularly as the Minister has quite openly stated that he is trying to bring about export parity in relation to the domestic prices in this country. The Minister in his second reading speech suggested that $1,400 may be the level at which the domestic price settles. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that at present the Australian dried fruit industry is receiving some $2,360 a tonne as its domestic price on the local market. If this price were to drop by almost $1,000 as the Minister has suggested, as a result of this new legislation it will, in fact, destroy a major part of the industry. One of the real concerns that the industry has about this legislation is not necessarily the number of people on the Board, but it is important in my view that the industry in total-the growers and the packers-retain its majority. It has done a good job. We need point to no other example than the position where a few months ago the industry was facing probably the worst crisis in its history. In fact, the Industries Assistance Commission report produced by the Government was formally buried in Deakin Avenue, the main street of Mildura. In just a few months, as a result of changing circumstances we have a situation where export prospects for the Australian dried fruit industry are now potentially the best since the early 1970s. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party has said, this has been brought about by changing prospects for dried vine fruits throughout the world, particularly because of the crop shortfalls in Greece, Turkey and South Africa. This will reduce the competition for Australia's market share in the European Economic Community, Asia and Canada for most of 1985. Australia's other major competitor, the United States of America, has large quantities of fruit to offer on world markets but, once again, the continuing strength of the United States dollar is obviously going to constrain the Californian based raisin industry in having the same impact on the world market as on Australia because of its comparative advantage with our currency. I will not delay the Committee any further. I simply say to the Minister that once again the problem of this industry does not relate to the number, type or quality of people on the Board. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) who is assisting me in this debate this evening recognises that the problems that exist within the industry relate to internal costs and not to the number of people on the Board. The Board over the years has done an exceptionally good job in very difficult circumstances. The coalition, when in government, reduced the number on the Board to enable it to become more efficient and more streamlined. There were people on it who clearly understood the needs of the industry. I see no real reason why the Minister needs to change this Board to such a degree. I see no real reason why the Minister will not accept an amendment that will give the industry, which has suffered very substantially over the last couple of years, some further support in ensuring that the equalisation levy does not bring about the same sort of harshness of adjustment to the industry as will the new marketing scheme and new plan for the dried fruit industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.39) —I guess the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) will now run around with this $1,400 figure. I was giving an arithmetical example showing how 15 per cent could effectively become 48 per cent. There is no expectation of $1,400; it was purely an arithmetic example. Question put: That the Senate's amendment be disagreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. 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.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Robinson, IanHayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Blunt, C. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That Mr Cunningham, Mr Brumby and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.47) —On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate, I bring up such reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- This amendment does not take account of the fact that increasing competitiveness, and complexity, of international marketing in dried vine fruit due to intervention by governments and technology advances dictate the need for wide inhouse expertise for the continued effective performance of the commercial functions of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation (ADFC). The Government proposal that there be two additional members from the business community, with specialist skills in areas such as finance and marketing outside the industry, would bring fresh insights and considerably broaden the Corporation membership and strengthen its decision making base. The Corporation's functions are commercial and therefore its membership should be capable of meeting the full spectrum of commercial demands placed upon it. The Australian Dried Fruits Association (ADFA) comprises both growers and packers. The Government's proposals would ensure that the industry, through the ADFA, would continue to have a direct influence on the appointment of six of the ten members. The ADFA provides nominations for the four grower members and is consulted on the existing two specialist members who have traditionally been from the packing sector. The ADFC would be consulted in regard to appointment of the two specialist members from outside the industry. The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It is the wish of the Government that Clause 3 of the original Bill be restored. Motion (by Mr Kerin) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.49) —The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1985 seeks to replace the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 with a new Commonwealth and States rural adjustment funding agreement. Under the new Act debt reconstruction and farm adjustment and development assistance will be provided by way of Commonwealth interest rate subsidies on borrowings by each of the States and the Northern Territory or commercial institutions. The existing legislation provides for Commonwealth assistance to be provided through loan funds and grants to the States. The term 'States' in the Bill refers to all of the participating States and the Northern Territory. The categories of assistance under the new scheme are essentially the same as under the present scheme. The forms of assistance covered by the scheme are: Part A-debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement; part B-carry-on finance, and part C-household support and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation assistance is currently in part A. Under the new scheme it will transfer to part C of the agreement. Under part A, the Commonwealth will now pay an interest subsidy over seven years equal to 50 per cent of the interest payable on State or commercial borrowings. Under part B, the interest subsidy over seven years will be 25 per cent of interest on borrowings. Part C assistance will continue to be funded from the Commonwealth Budget. The rural adjustment scheme was introduced on 1 January 1977. Prior to 1977 there had been a number of schemes providing adjustment assistance in the rural sector. The more recent of these were the rural reconstruction scheme, the fruitgrowing reconstruction scheme and the dairy adjustment program. The Fraser Government introduced the rural adjustment scheme following the Industries Assistance Commission's 1976 report on rural reconstruction which recommended that adjustment assistance be provided on a continuing basis under a single scheme operating under a Commonwealth-State agreement. The rural adjustment scheme can be divided in the following manner: Firstly, there are the main measures for farm build-up, farm improvement and debt reconstruction for those farmers who have 'sound prospects of long term commercial viability'. Secondly, there is rehabilitation and household support for 'non-viable' farmers who have been obliged to leave farming or are considering whether to do so. The assistance provided to farmers has been provided dominantly in the form of concessional loans. The concessional terms have enhanced the long-term prospects of those assisted. The scheme also provides for any loans given to be reviewed at regular intervals with the objective of the borrower being encouraged to transfer to commercial credit as soon as circumstances permit. I would say that the scheme has been a tremendous success. It has helped with a lot of farm build-up and has helped many farmers around Australia who have run into financial liquidity problems as a result of drought and other reconstruction needs. The Commission recommended that the rural adjustment scheme be discontinued as a generally available scheme for farmers meeting the eligibility criteria. The Commission recommended the assistance provided with each of the measures in the scheme be in the form of grants. The new scheme proposed by this Bill will provide the same forms of assistance as have been available, but under different financing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. Parts A and B of the scheme are to be funded by State borrowings, the Commonwealth Government's assistance will be in the form of an interest rate subsidy. The Government's concern that funds provided to the States at concessional rates in the past have not been passed on to farmers at the same concessional rates, and at the non-use of surpluses so generated in further help to rural industries, is commendable. I think it is outrageous that some State governments have been pocketing the roll-over funds. I think that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is quite right in endeavouring to try to put a stop to this state of affairs. I know that one State in particular seems to have got away with about $100m and another one with about $30m. Mr Kerin —It is probably those Nationals. Mr HUNT —I think there is a Labor State involved. The Nationals are not the worst in the world. I am not so sure that the Labor States are not the worst of the lot. The Minister had a very important responsibility to put a stop to this nonsense. I am pleased that he has and I congratulate him for it. The Bill provides for the Minister to submit an annual report to the Commonwealth Parliament relating to the operation and effectiveness of the scheme. The Minister is to base this report on the information supplied by the States at a review meeting for the purposes of monitoring and accountability. Part A of the scheme will provide assistance for farm build-up, farm improvement and debt reconstruction. Farm build-up seeks to increase the size of properties which are too small to be commercially viable by either amalgamating them with adjoining properties or subdividing them and amalgamating the subdivisions with adjoining properties. Under these provisions, assistance may be granted in the purchase of an adjoining holding and in carry-on expenses, plant, stock and property development in respect of the additional land. The farm improvement provision aims to assist in the attainment of commercial viability by farmers by providing financial assistance to applicants to improve a farm's effective use without adding to its physical size. Part C of the scheme provides for household support. This is a welfare-type measure which aims to provide limited assistance to applicants facing conditions of financial hardship who are considering leaving farming. This aspect of the scheme needs as much publicity as possible because undoubtedly a number of farmers throughout Australia are rapidly finding themselves in this situation. Mr Lloyd —Generally, they can't get unemployment benefit. That is the reason for it. Mr HUNT —What the honourable member says is absolutely true. Therefore, it is absolutely essential for this provision to be available to sugar producers in Queensland, to the dairy producers in Victoria and other States and to the wheat growers. Certainly, as time goes on with this Government in office, there will be a beaten path to the assistance under this arrangement. The provision applies to farmers who do not have prospects of long term commercial viability. The amount of assistance provided in a year will raise an applicant's total net income to the equivalent of the amount received by an unemployed person in the form of the unemployment benefit. If the farmer who receives this assistance does not leave farming he will be liable to repay with interest the funds he has received. The assistance is limited to applicants who are obliged to leave farming and who face financial hardship. The maximum amount of assistance under this provision is set at $8,000 at 1 July 1985 and is indexed to the consumer price index. The Minister has indicated the expectation that the level of Commonwealth funding for assistance under part A of the scheme will gradually rise over the next seven years from an estimated level of $1.75m in 1985-86 to a peak of around $12m to $13m. This is despite the fact that the Bill sets no actual amounts to be allocated, other than to provide that it will be determined after consultation between the Commonwealth and States each year on the basis of a total amount that the Commonwealth considers feasible to subsidise. In other words, the level of funding available to rural adjustment in this country has not only received a sizable cutback from the $30m provided for 1984-85 but also it is to be in the very risky situation of facing further restrictions in times of budgetary constraint. We all know the Government's attitude to rural Australia when looking for areas in which to restrain Budgets. It is worth mentioning once again that in the mini-Budget that came down last week very close to 77 per cent of the actual cuts in programs and expenditures came out of the heart of the rural areas of Australia. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr HUNT —About 77 per cent. It is typical of the way in which Labor governments have treated the rural areas. Apparently, the rural areas are not voting enough for Labor so it gets to them with an electoral stock whip and gives them the one, two, three at Budget time. It is an outrageous state of affairs. The country people will not put up with it much longer. They will really turn on this Government and give it heaps. The level of funding available to rural adjustment has received a sizable cutback. There is not the slightest doubt about it. It seems incredible that the Government should now be decreasing funds for rural reconstruction and adjustment, making things even harder for State governments. These further cutbacks in funds for rural adjustment will serve only to leave farmers in economic suspension. Notwithstanding those criticisms offered in a very constructive sense, the Opposition supports the legislation but must draw attention to the arrogant approach of the Government in failing to advise the States of the final content of the agreement until the legislation was brought before the Parliament. I have been asked to convey that message to the Minister. I hope that in the future he will undertake proper consultations with the States and at least send them a copy of the draft of the Bill before it comes into the Parliament. I think it is a matter of courtesy. I have had complaint that that was not the case. Mr Kerin —From the States? Mr HUNT —From the State governments; I know there has been a lot of discussion at the officer level but the States did not receive copies of the legislation or the agreement until it was brought into this House, and they were not very happy about it. That is what the States claim. Without further ado, I say that the Opposition supports the legislation and will ensure it receives a speedy passage through this place. Tuesday, 21 May 1985 Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.01 a.m.) —When one considers the plight of many rural industries today, especially in the areas of sugar and dairying, one realises just how important it is that the rural adjustment scheme remains operative. It is also important that the deficiencies in the scheme brought to light by the Industries Assistance Commission in its March 1984 report are rectified. I therefore welcome moves to this end contained in the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill introduced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Since 1971 Commonwealth governments have been providing funds to the States and the Northern Territory to assist rural producers under highly concessional terms and conditions. I take the point raised by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) that it is regrettable and unfortunate, especially for those struggling in rural industries, that these highly concessional terms and conditions have not always been passed on by the State governments. I refer specifically to the Queensland State Government. Under the terms of the rural adjustment agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland the funds were lent to the State over 20 years at an interest rate of 8 per cent. Moreover, Queensland was required to pay back only 85 per cent of the funds borrowed and had a four year repayment holiday of principal. The 15 per cent grant element in the part A funding program for debt reconstruction, farm buildup, farm improvement and rehabilitation was intended to cover bad debts and rehabilitation assistance. Despite the repeated claims by the Queensland Government that it has a special commitment to the rural sector there is clear evidence to demonstrate that for years the National Party State Government in Queensland has been robbing rural producers blind, robbing them of their just entitlements by way of the assistance under the rural reconstruction and adjustment scheme. While the Commonwealth has forgone 15 per cent of money borrowed by the State, allegedly to cover bad debts, those debts have been extremely small. They have been minimal. The Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board annual report for 1983-84 indicates that the write-down of redundant assets, the write-off of irrecoverable debts and loans converted to grants, amount only to $114,873 for the rural adjustment scheme and $251,839 for the rural reconstruction scheme. In the six month period from 1 July 1984 to 31 December 1984 bad debts totalled only 0.5 per cent. Clearly, the Queensland Government has been making enormous profits out of the 15 per cent non-repayable component of the RAS loans. In addition to the straight out savings, the State has been pocketing the interest earned on the deposits held. It is no wonder that the Queensland Government has generated such handsome surpluses when it is realised that while it was generously lent the money at 8 per cent, it re-lent the money to the rural producers of Queensland at between 13 and 14 per cent. Part of the agreement with the Commonwealth was that the State was given a four-year repayment holiday of principal. However, that moratorium was never passed on to the farmer. To make matters worse, even though the Commonwealth loan was over 20 years, the Queensland National Party Government locked Queensland farmers into short repayment periods. This is the way the National Party has helped farmers in Queensland-by providing high interest loans to be paid back over a limited repayment period with no holiday of principal repayments. It is no wonder that the Queensland National Party Government has been able to accumulate surpluses measured in tens of millions of dollars. The 1983-84 annual report of the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board showed surpluses totalling approximately $30m in the rural adjustment fund and the rural reconstruction fund. This figure does not take into account another $2m credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund from the rural adjustment fund and another $8m credited to Consolidated Revenue from the rural reconstruction fund. The Queensland Government now intends to transfer the $30m into Consolidated Revenue, which represents a total effective loss of $40m for adjustment purposes to the Queensland primary producer. That is $40m of farmers' money that has been milked by the National Party to help hide its mismanagement of the State economy. Every primary producer organisation in the State should be in uproar over this rural rort. Their members are suffering but we hear very little. We hear no cries or criticism. Their industries are being short changed. The money should be spent, as the original Commonwealth-State agreement required on debt reconstruction, farm build-up, farm improvement and rehabilitation. It is farm improvement and rehabilitation to which I intend to target my remarks. One of the major problems confronting rural producers across the nation is soil degradation. That is certainly true in Queensland. Yet, despite the serious threat to the State's rural and general economy, the Queensland National Party Government is lending soil conservation finance to farmers at 13.5 per cent, even though it is getting it at 8 per cent. There is no incentive for farmers to grapple with the problems; instead, there is a deterrent. Instead of adopting a proper land management plan where the farm is being developed and when the farm is being developed, the property owner is forced to work on a five-to-10 year plan. It is too late by that time. The erosion has occurred and the restoration is so often beyond the financial resources of the farmer. The Queensland Department of Primary Industry and water resources officers deserve the highest possible praise for their efforts but the State Government stands condemned for its lending rules. A number of aspects tend to distinguish soil problems in Queensland from those in other States-erosivity of the rainfall, the erodability of the soil itself and the exceptionally large areas of land to protect. Queensland has to protect 1.4 million hectares of land, which any government would find an unenviable task. Present statistics indicate that 772,000 hectares are being protected through contour banks and stubble mulching, but that still leaves 47 per cent of the target area unprotected. As I said, full credit should be given to the soil conservation research branch in the Queensland Department of Primary Industry for its efforts to contend with, contain and counter soil degradation from water erosion and salinity. Soil degradation from water erosion and salinity is the major constraint to the long term sustained productivity of Queensland's agricultural and grazing lands. The Queensland DPI conservation branch is now working on 23,500 farming establishments affected by erosion. That still leaves 48 per cent of farms with soil problems. Farmer co-operation is steadily increasing, but this much desired farmer involvement is not always forthcoming, especially in new areas or where farms have been recently expanded. It will only be forthcoming if financial assistance is available and if the loans are at a low interest rate. At the risk of being further parochial I will quickly relate to some problems of central Queensland. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry for the assistance that has been given by his Government, through the national soil conservation program, especially the appointment of three additional soil conservation officers in Moura, Claremont and Emerald. Those officers, working together with the Queensland soil conservation branch, are grappling with the region's problems with a dedication that is unsurpassed anywhere in the country. I fear that unless further financial support is given to the farmers the battle could be lost. The ball is at the feet of the State Government now. It has $40m to play with. The soils of central Queensland are generally shallow. There is less than 90 centimetres or three feet of soil to bedrock. The average is more around 60 centimetres. In the brigalow areas there is about 45 centimetres of top soil and below that a high saline subsoil. The soil in the region has been described as the most fragile in the nation. Because of summer cropping and the erosive rainfall, intensive soil conservation measures need to be applied. The region encompasses approximately 600,000 hectares of arable land, which give some idea of the extent of the task of protection. In the last eight years about 250,000 hectares have been protected with contour banks and land management programs. Despite this effort, there are enormous losses in soil tonnages. In fact they are frightening. In the April to June rains in 1983 the average soil loss on bare, unprotected land was 100 tonnes per hectare. Some farms experienced losses of 200 tonnes per hectare. It has been assessed that in some unprotected areas the annual loss is reaching 50 tonnes per hectare. When the loss rate is related to the shallow depths of soil, it will be appreciated why there are fears that some farming areas have a life expectancy of only about 20 years. More and more farmers are becoming aware that soil forms at only approximately l2 tonnes per hectare per annum and they see the battle against erosion lost unless help is given. So I again make the plea for cheap finance to these farmers. The cost of earth works for contour banks is about $80 per hectare, which could entail expenditure of up $100,000 on the average property. The State Government has $40m, which means that 400 Queensland properties could be relieved totally of their soil erosion and degradation problems, or work could commence immediately on some 4,000 to 5,000 farming establishments. I call on the Bjelke-Peterson Government to overturn the decision of his Cabinet and his Treasury to siphon off that $40m. I call on Bjelke-Peterson and his Primary Industries Minister, Mr Turner, to make it available to the Queensland farmers so that they can finally redress the grave soil erosion problems in that State. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.11 a.m.) -The continuation of the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill recognises the important need for restructuring funds in the rural industry and also the vital part the rural industry plays in the affairs of the Australian economy. It has been said in the past that when there is a hiccup in the fortunes of the rural industry the Australian economy gets the flu. We have only to take the drought of 1981-1983 to see a good example of that. The scheme lends on a last resort basis. Many Commonwealth and State schemes also operate on this basis. It makes one question where the financial buck stops. It is a source of frustration to the farmer or grazier seeking emergency funds to stay afloat long enough to see him through a temporary difficulty when he cannot get his hands on a source of funding that should be made available to him. The principle of rural adjustment is divided into three parts: Firstly, debt reconstruction; secondly, carry-on finance; and, thirdly, rehabilitation or household support. Under debt reconstruction, the Commonwealth will not pay an interest subsidy over seven years equal to 50 per cent of the interest payable on State or commercial borrowings. Under carry-on finance, the interest subsidy paid over seven years will be 25 per cent of interest on borrowings. Outlays for rehabilitation or household support will remain virtually unchanged. The complaint I have with the legislation is in the reducing value of Commonwealth outlays from $32m in 1984-85 to $40m by 1991-92 at a time when reconstruction is being pushed on to dairy and sugar industries and most industries are facing severe financial stress. In support of this criticism I refer to the changing fortunes of the rural industry over the past 10 years. The need for rural support is based on the simple economic theory of survival, that is, that Australia's economy can survive only through an enhanced export performance. In this regard it is interesting to look at the performance over the past decade of our export industries at current prices. In 1974-75 rural exports at $3.936 billion contributed 47 per cent of Australia's total exports. Ten years later, by 1983-84, the rural component at $9.017 billion had been reduced to 38 per cent of Australia's total exports. The figures reflect an adverse trend at a time when rural industry subsidisation has decreased. In overall terms, primary industry in Australia has an effective protection rate of 8 per cent. In 1970, it was 28 per cent. Today, manufacturing industry has an effective protection rate of 24 per cent. This is only 12 per cent lower than the 1970 figure of 36 per cent. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which show the overseas trading performance of Australia from 1977-78 to 1983-84 in average 1979-80 prices. Leave granted. The table read as follows- OVERSEAS TRANSACTIONS Exports of Goods (balance of payments basis) at current and average 1979-80 prices-continued $ million 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 At average 1979-80 pricesRural exports f.o.b. Meat and meat preparations 2,152 2,256 1,729 1,654 1,596 1,782 1,312 Cereal grains and cereal preparation 1,997 1,467 2,957 2,040 2,228 1,597 2,274 Sugar, sugar preparations and honey 750 582 719 819 779 850 761 Wool and sheepskins 1,639 1,892 1,790 1,819 1,701 1,602 1,700 Other (dairy produce, fruit, etc.) 1,449 1,598 1,653 1,573 1,652 1,744 1,600 Total rural 7,987 7,795 8,847 7,905 7,956 7,575 7,707 Non-rural exports f.o.b. Metal ores and minerals 3,172 3,222 3,306 3,076 2,824 2,845 3,199 Mineral fuels Coal, coke and briquettes 1,511 1,564 1,686 1,824 1,797 2,047 2,394 Other (a) 488 593 427 471 776 813 1,099 Metals and metal manufactures 1,653 1,968 2,027 1,843 1,953 2,247 2,199 Machinery and transport equipment 658 728 798 831 857 835 928 Other non-rural (b) 925 1,431 1,498 1,506 1,476 1,563 1,851 Total non-rural 8,407 9,506 9,741 9,551 9,683 10,350 11,670 Total exports f.o.b. 16,394 17,301 18,589 17,456 17,639 17,925 19,377 (a) Until 1980-81 excludes division 34. (b) Until 1980-81 includes division 34. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. The decrease percentage mentioned earlier of rural exports to total exports is reflected again in the figures incorporated. Based on average 1979-80 prices, total rural exports in 1983-84 were less than they were in 1977-78, in spite of the fact that our rural industries are as efficient as any others throughout the world and that the quantity of export sales, especially in sugar, are greater now than they were seven years ago. That means we are selling more but getting less for it. In the past 10 years, again taking sugar as an example, the sugar industry subsidised the domestic consumer to the extent of $408m. Continuing some of the earlier statistics on the subsidisation of sugar retreated from 38 per cent in 1970-71 to minus 13 per cent in 1980-81. Today the Government subsidises the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd to the tune of $400m and the motor vehicle industry to the tune of $150m. I use these arguments for two reasons. The first is to stress once again that, contrary to some Labor thought and feelings from the cities, the rural industry is not the great subsidy taker as some would believe, but actually suffers a penalty of $7,000 per farm unit per annum as a result of protection of the manufacturing industry. The second reason is to indicate that financial assistance through the rural adjustment scheme is justified if Australia is to maintain the present standard of living of all Australians and its place in the world markets through our exports and to help those farmers who fight not only the seasons but the Government introduced costs. I particularly mention fuel, fertiliser and chemical prices. They fight the costs of protection of manufacturing industries and the cost of the regulated, centralised wage-fixing system over which they have no control. These are the daily battles that farmers and graziers around Australia fight. I refer as the best example I have to the present plight of the sugar industry, which has not had any assistance by direct grants but only a small amount from the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. This industry, because it has seldom sought help in the past, is now being victimised by the present Labor Government which is seeking to deregulate, but the industry has been given no assurance of financial assistance, even if it does regulate to the extent of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics recommendations contained in the final Industries Assistance Commission report. Rural adjustment finance is not a subsidy because most of the payments through the scheme are repayable loans with interest, albeit at lower rates of interest depending on the circumstances of individual cases. I believe that the RAS has a part to play in restructuring and reconstructing the sugar industry. Many applications for assistance have been handed to me after refusal by the Rural Reconstruction Board. Many have been refused on the basis that carry-on funds only increase indebtedness, that it is the same indebtedness that causes the problems of ever-increasing interest payments and higher redemptions. I agree with that philosophy against increasing the farm debt on that basis. Obviously the funds now allocated are insufficient in view of the current problems that many of our rural industries face. The funds are insufficient even to provide the finance required by the sugar industry and it frightens me to interpret from this anticipated funding arrangement that the Commonwealth and perhaps the States too have no realisation of those problems. They have no answers to those problems that confront our rural industries today. I quote from the Australian Financial Review of 1 May 1985, giving the situation in relation to people in the sugar industry as far as their difficulties of finance are concerned. The article states: Queensland sugar cane growers, keeping up the pressure on Federal and State governments for the quickest possible decision on aid to the industry, released a survey this week suggesting two-thirds of Queensland growers have run out of credit with their bankers. The survey also suggests that bankers are in for a solid rise in the number of sugar growing customers going out the back door, and presumably in their bad debt ratios. There is a need for Commonwealth and State participation in this funding. There is a need to make States more accountable, but there has to be at both levels of government some appreciation of problems that can be alleviated through the RAS. Rural reconstruction boards have to become more involved in individual applications. Blanket guidelines that limit assistance to $40,000 per producer are just not realistic. Refinancing of debt structures at appropriate levels of interest, counselling between all parties in the reconstruction, realistic assessments of propositions and the recognition of the worth of efficient, reliable farmers and growers must all be part of assessments by the officers of the RRB to keep farmers on the land and to keep exports at the levels required to maintain those standards of living for our fellow Australians that I mentioned earlier. Purchasers of farms can be encouraged to accept a level of debt that is manageable so as to acquire a neighbour's property where the neighbour has no alternative but to sell. Low interest levels and long terms for repayments in these circumstances will maintain the productivity of the farm and of the industry. I also refer to the $1.3m available for Part C of the scheme on household support. This Part is available by way of grant for a farmer selling out of the industry, but the few grants made available through the scheme evidence the very real difficulties facing farmers when this scheme does not help. For instance, a decision to leave the industry is for a family farmer a decision of great significance and not one taken lightly. The household support is conditional upon the decision to sell and I believe it is unduly harsh. It makes individuals surrender their pride as they are examined and probed in financial and farming methods and humiliated before decisions are made, which are seldom in their favour. Income support is not always available to the farmer and such support through Part C should be on the same basis as support for those applicants under the Social Services Act of 1947. One or the other should be designed to provide a level of income support. For instance, single farmers prepared to work outside their businesses but who cannot get that work are denied both unemployment benefits and household support. The Department of Social Security categorises them not as unemployed but as underemployed and the Rural Reconstruction Board cannot fund them because they want to stay on the farm. Obviously, the new enterprise incentives scheme apparently under implementation by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will not be expanded to cover unemployed in existing businesses. For those people it is a real catch-22 problem that is being pushed under the carpet by all levels of government. I particularly refer to this Bill and its importance as far as the States are concerned. I understand that the Bill is going to check and make accountable the States in the use of these funds and the repayment of these funds for reissue. I believe that if those funds were now made available, the extent of them would relieve a lot of the problems in the dairy industry and would relieve a lot of the problems in the sugar industry. I believe there has to be a two-way approach. I ask that the RRB takes into consideration realistic guidelines that will assess properly the needs of farmers who are viable, good farmers who need to be encouraged to survive in this farming life of today. Again I go back to the individual State boards and suggest that they take a fresh look at their responsibilities and react accordingly because it requires the good will of both State and Federal governments if we are to maintain the exports on which Australia's economy depends. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.23 a.m.) —in reply-I will not speak very long on this matter. I thank the Opposition members who spoke for their supportive comments. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) ranged widely, as did the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). This scheme is a lot more flexible. By moving towards an interest subsidy, both the Commonwealth and the States will have considerably more flexibility. There was some comment by the honourable member for Gwydir that we were effectively cutting back. In the first year, of course, we are rolling $10m over from the old scheme into the new scheme-and that is essential-and with the $3m that adds up to the $13m that he was referring to. By and large that $3m can subsidise the interest for about $30.5m which was what was allocated in the current year, so there is no cut back at all and there is quite a bit more flexibility up our sleeve in terms of any Budget draw-down if we get into an emergency situation or a situation where the industry is in great stress. As we have already indicated-the Cabinet has already taken this decision-together with the States there is up to $40m available under the rural adjustment scheme for the dairy industry. Of course, we have the hundred-day inquiry under way on the sugar industry. I am quite sure that some part of the package will relate to rural adjustment. Again, it is not as if the RAS is entirely related to the annual agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, but that under RAS Part B there is always room for separate negotiations to take place. I reject pretty well the claim that the States did not get the Bill. As I understand it, because of the strike in Queensland there was a delay in the whole Bill getting to the Queensland Government. However, I took part in a meeting with the State Ministers and officials at which we virtually hammered this Bill out clause by clause. The big problem is that the fiscal fiends in the Department of Finance and the Treasury made life pretty tough for me. They did that because of the rorts. We estimate that since 1977 the States, as has been pointed out by the Industries Assistance Commission, have accumulated from $200m to $223m in funds. So there was not just consultation; there was some negotiation and a need for us to apply pretty tough provisions so that the States did not continue on their merry way rorting the scheme and so that we did not leave ourselves open in future. I agree with what the honourable member for Dawson said about those funds. We know, as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) has pointed out, that the Queensland Government has already taken $10m across into general revenue. There is at least another $30m to $33m there now. People can cry poor mouth and blame the Commonwealth Government. This money was allocated by the Commonwealth under the terms of an agreement. Legally the States own and control it, but rather than kicking hell out of Canberra all the time, when rural industries are in trouble they should use those funds for those industries. Mr Braithwaite —There are States other than Queensland. Mr KERIN —There are other States but we have those figures exactly. The honourable member for Dawson raised points about household support and the unemployment benefit. I do not know whether he mentioned the family income supplement, but there are schemes whereby farmers can get assistance. At present we are looking at this question with the Department of Social Security. I will not forget the first time when, as Minister for Primary Industry, I attended a meeting of the States on the rural adjustment scheme. I asked the States to look more seriously at household support and to interpret that a little more liberally because it was my estimation that some industries would be in serious trouble. The States were not inclined to look at the matter at all. Basically, they believed that the rural adjustment scheme was for more traditional forms of keeping farms viable. They would not look at other elements of the scheme. That is where the Commonwealth's commitment is virtually open-ended. We are looking at that question further. The big problem is that farms are businesses and we cannot open up the whole question without doing so for the whole of the business sector. Some shops have downturns at various periods throughout the year, just as farms do. It would really get out of control very quickly, but we are re-examining that matter. I thank all honourable members for their comments on this important Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.28 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, Schedule, definition of 'average outstanding loans' in sub-clause 3 (1) of form of agreement, insert ', and half the outstanding borrowings otherwise than by the State at the end of each such successive period for the purposes of the Scheme' after 'Scheme'. (2) Page 4, Schedule, sub-paragraph 6 (a) (i) of form of agreement, insert 'and' after 'assistance;'. (3) Page 4, Schedule, sub-paragraph 6 (a) (ii) of form of agreement, omit ', not being existing borrowings, whether of not to restructure existing borrowings'. (4) Page 4, Schedule, sub-paragraph 6 (b) (i) of form of agreement, insert 'and' after 'assistance;'. (5) Page 4, Schedule, sub-paragraph 6 (b) (ii) of form of agreement, omit ', not being existing borrowings, whether or not to restructure existing borrowings'. These are really machinery amendments. Amendment No. 1 to sub-clause 3 (1) relates to the option of providing an interest subsidy under the rural adjustment scheme on loans through normal commercial sources. The amendment will provide for a Commonwealth contribution to State administration expenses for RAS assistance made on the basis of State borrowings or through normal commercial sources. Amendments Nos 2 and 4, which relate to sub-paragraphs 6 (a) (i) and 6 (a) (ii), are stylistic changes. Amendments Nos 3 and 5 enable the interest subsidy under the RAS to be paid on all loans through normal commercial sources, including existing loans. If left unamended, sub-paragraphs 6 (a) (ii) and 6 (b) (ii) would require that the interest subsidy be paid only on new loans or existing loans which have been restructured. This could result in assisted persons incurring establishment or other costs and thereby receiving less assistance under the RAS than intended. These are very sensible minor amendments which- Mr Hunt —Did you say more or less? Did you say that we would have to pay more or less? Mr KERIN —If they have to pay a second lot of establishment costs they would receive less assistance under the rural adjustment scheme than intended. We are just overcoming that possible problem. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 14 May. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.32 a.m.) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision, announced on 12 March 1985, to establish the Australian Customs Service-the ACS-as a separate identity within the Industry, Technology and Commerce portfolio. Before I detail the matters covered by the Bill I will take a few moments to mention some important background points relating to the Customs' functions. I know that honourable members are eager to hear this. The Australian Constitution gives this Parliament the exclusive power to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods. Administration of the Parliament's powers has traditionally been performed by the Customs. In addition to its role in administering these industry assistance measures, the Customs is charged with enforcing measures to control the import and export of goods and, on behalf of other agencies, the movement of people and ships and aircraft into and out of Australia. Customs has a significant role in the Government's overall strategy against illicit drug trafficking and illegal drug importation. More than 5,000 members of the Australian Public Service are engaged in customs and customs related functions. The majority of the Customs staff are located in custom offices in the States and the Northern Territory. There are in excess of 100 airports, seaports and inland sub-offices, staffed on a full time or part time basis. Representatives of the Customs are also stationed in Auckland, Brussels, Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo. Responsibility for the customs function has, until now, been transferred six times amongst various Australian Public Service departments in different guises. For 55 years it was located in a department called Trade and Customs. It was for another 19 years in the Department of Customs and Excise and has been with the Industry portfolio since 1982. The Government believes that the Customs should now be established on a permanent basis with a permanent identity. An important role of the Customs is to implement industry assistance measures. The close co-operation between the customs and industry policy areas of the Department arises from its present location within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce which has considerably enhanced its performance in this role. The Government does not wish to disturb this arrangement and it is for this reason that the proposed independent ACS will continue to be responsible to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I now turn to the main features of this Bill. Clause 4 establishes an Australian Customs Service and the office of the Comptroller-General of Customs. The appointee to that office will, under the Minister, control and direct persons employed in the ACS. The companion to this Bill, which I will introduce shortly, proposes to invest the general administration of the legislation to be administered by the ACS in the Comptroller-General. That legislation includes the various bounty and schemes and, of course, the Customs Act and the Excise Act. By the provisions of clause 15 the Comptroller-General is to be invested with all of the powers of a Secretary to a department of the Australian Public Service so that he may have direct control over the staffing and other resources required by the Australian Customs. Similar to other statutory appointments it is proposed that the Comptroller-General of Customs be appointed for a period of seven years with salary and allowances being determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and the usual provisions relating to leave of absence, resignation, outside employment, portability and acting appointments being applied. To provide maximum flexibility for the recruitment of appropriate staff at all levels within the ACS, clause 15 of the Bill also provides for the staff of that body to be appointed and employed under the Public Service Act. Two other important provisions in this Bill are clauses 16 and 17. Clause 16 will permit the Comptroller-General or an authorised member of the ACS to pass on, in very limited circumstances, certain information received by the ACS in confidence. (Quorum formed) This will be particularly relevant in connection with the Government's efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking. It will facilitate exchanges of information between the ACS and other law enforcement agencies in Australia and overseas. Under the provisions of clause 17 the Comptroller-General is required to furnish an annual report of the operations of the ACS to the Minister. The report will be tabled in accordance with normal procedure. It is appropriate that I mention it is proposed that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the ACS will have separate management services and other support services. The sharing of such areas might initially seem attractive but experience has shown that, generally speaking, such arrangements are of limited effectiveness and practicability over any extended period. I mentioned earlier the importance of close co-operation between the industry policy areas of the Department and the Customs. It is essential that this be maintained. The Government considers that such co-operation should be placed on a firm basis by the preparation of a document detailing the working relationship between the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Customs Service. Such a document is currently being prepared and when appropriate I will arrange to have it tabled for the information of honourable members. The creation of the office of Comptroller-General of Customs and the establishment of the Australian Customs Service will provide a number of benefits, including relieving the Minister and Secretary to the Department of the routine of Customs administration with greater opportunity, in consequence, for both to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. The division of the support services between the Department and the ACS may, however, involve the creation of new positions within each body. Details have not yet been finalised. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 16 May. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.41 a.m.) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the companion of the Customs Administration Bill 1985 which proposes to establish an independent Australian Customs Service-ACS-and create the office of Comptroller-General of Customs for the purpose of that service. The main purpose of this Bill is to invest the general administration of the legislation to be administered by the ACS in the Comptroller-General of Customs. That legislation which is listed in the Schedule to the Bill includes all of the legislation traditionally administered by the Customs. The legislation includes the Customs Act and Excise Act and a number of bounty and subsidy Acts. Australia's Customs laws contain a wide range of powers conferred upon the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, the majority of which have been delegated to Departmental officers for the efficient administration of the Customs. The Government believes that these delegated powers should now be transferred to the Comptroller-General of Customs. The provisions of the Schedule to the Bill propose to effect this transfer. I might mention that the Comptroller-General will in turn, by virtue of the provisions of Clause 14 of the Customs Administration Bill 1985, be able to delegate the transferred powers under a general power of delegation. In relation to the transfer of other powers of the Minister that have not at this time been delegated, a review is currently under way to determine whether there are any of these powers which ought to be transferred to the Comptroller-General of Customs, I expect this review to be finalised prior to the Budget Sittings this year. Consistent with the general power of delegation by the Comptroller-General the opportunity has been taken to transfer, where appropriate from the Minister to the Comptroller-General the power to appoint persons to perform particular powers or functions. Finally, I draw to honourable members' attention the proposed amendment in the Schedule to Section 8 of the Customs Act. The purpose of this amendment is to remove from that Act the statutory requirement that there be a Collector of Customs for a State or Territory. This will give the Comptroller-General flexibility to designate such Collectors of Customs as are required for the efficient management of the Customs similar to the provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the house. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill cognately with the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.39 a.m.) — The Customs Administration Bill proposed to implement the Government's decision, announced last March, to establish the Australian Customs Service as a separate organisation within the general portfolio of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It has been a well known fact for some time, virtually from the establishment of the present Government, that the current Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), when he took over those responsibilities, saw little purpose in having to carry the onerous and sometimes time-consuming responsibilities of administering the Customs Act and the functions of being the Minister responsible for Customs while at the same time carrying the extremely heavy portfolio load of Industry, Technology and Commerce. It was on this basis that negotiations were conducted by the Minister and his senior officers with the Public Service Board soon after the Hawke Government was elected with the intention of achieving the establishment of a separate entity, as is now the purpose of this legislation. We must not lose sight of the fact that under the Constitution the executive power to impose duties on customs and/or excise and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods is a traditional responsibility of the Customs department. It is equally important to point out that after personal taxation, most indirect taxation is collected through the structure of the Customs function. In addition, its role to protect Australia from illegal imports of a wide variety of goods is a matter of grave importance, and as we have seen in recent reports tabled in this Parliament, and from other reports from royal commissions, there has been for some years serious concern about the capacity of the Customs Service to satisfactorily protect this country, especially from illegal drug trafficking and drug importation and distribution. In relative terms the Customs Service is large. It has a staff of over 5,000 members who are under the Public Service Act. They are spread throughout Australia at all airports and seaports. They also have representation overseas, essentially of an administrative nature but they perform an important intelligence function as well. It is an undoubted fact that, over recent years, the Customs function has been somewhat akin to the ugly duckling of the Public Service. It has been transferred no fewer than six times among various Commonwealth departments in an effort to try to find an amenable home for it which would enable the officers within the Service to be able to function satisfactorily. The Government's proposal to establish a permanent basis and a separate identity for the Australian Customs Service is generally supported by the Opposition. In addition to its other important responsibilities, the Service has to carry out and implement industry assistance measures which require that the new Customs Service maintain a very close relationship with the industry policy areas within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The Minister, in another place, in his second reading speech, emphasised this fact. However, I must place on record that I have my doubts at having established a separate entity which will, in turn, automatically develop its own policy concepts and interests, that it will be possible to maintain the closeness of working relationship which the Minister obviously regards as desirable. Having the Customs Service continue to be responsible to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce may well not be enough, but time alone will tell. Under the legislation, the Comptroller-General will have all the powers of a secretary of a Public Service department. He will have direct control over the staffing and other resources required by the Australian Customs Service. He will be appointed for a period of seven years with the salaries and allowances determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Staff of the ACS will be appointed and employed under the Public Service Act. I note with some scepticism in the Minister's speech that it is intended that the department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the ACS will have separate management services and other support services. While it may be true, as the Minister claims, that experience has shown that continuing with common services does create practical problems, I can assure the House that it is not possible to separate the administrative functions of these two organisations and at the same time come into this Parliament and claim in the financial impact statement: The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. Obviously, as has been stated, new positions at the administrative level will be created for the Service. In other words, we are seeing yet another example of the Parkinsonian principle being applied and very much at work. Administrative costs in the Australian Public Service have an inexorable capacity to spiral upwards and there is no doubt, whatever the administrative advantages may be, that the establishment of a separate, independent administrative arm for the ACS will, in time, become a major cost factor in the overall functioning of the Service. Customs is responsible for enforcing the laws relating to the control and import and export of goods on behalf of other departments. It also is responsible for the movement of people, ships and aircraft into and out of Australian ports. Consequently it has a focal point of great importance for the security of this country. But the legislation in no way addresses any changes which might be required in the actual administration of Customs, nor are we told what the user benefits are going to be. The existing Customs Service is, in effect, a self-contained unit administered within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. There have been a number of difficulties with the Customs Service over recent years and inquiries which have resulted have touched on various aspects of the Customs Service. These include the Black inquiry into Mr Young's problems, importation of teddy bears and other likely things, the Senate inquiry into pornography, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Royal Commission on meat substitution, and the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures. The financial impact which we have been told has no relevance will, as I have already stated, have a major impact because of the realities that additional staff positions and the duplication of functions between what will now effectively be two departments will obviously have a financial cost. A focal point in the Government's strategy to combat illicit drug trafficking and illegal drug importation will obviously be the role played by the new Customs Service. It also has a role to play in terms of illegal immigration. The Customs Service is of great importance in the overall collection of revenue, as I have already stated. In supporting the very preliminary steps to overhaul the Customs administration presented in the Bill before the House tonight, the Opposition stresses the vital role of Customs. Customs controls the import and export of all goods into Australia. It polices the traffic of illegal drugs into the country and illicit drug exportation. It plays a very significant role in raising revenue, which in terms of excise collection is estimated at $10.8 billion. In addition, it employs some 5,000 personnel. There has been widespread concern over the ability of the present system to perform these very complex functions, and it is believed that these initial procedures to establish an independent Australian Customs Service will go some way towards overcoming these problems. The Bill creates the office of the Comptroller-General of Customs as the controlling officer of the Australian Customs Service and gives him the status of a secretary to a department. The legislation proposed by the Government tonight however, is somewhat unclear on the specific roles of the Comptroller-General, who takes over much of the direct responsibility of the Customs administration and yet is acting under the existing Minister; nor is the proposed legislation incisive in its proposals for the actual administrative reform that is so obviously necessary in this area. The legislation also fails to undertake a modernisation of the whole Customs Act to bring it more into line with current international and Australian commercial and trading practices, legal concepts and judicial systems, as called for by the coalition in another place. In this I echo my colleague Senator Chaney who has said in another place about the Opposition: . . . can see advantages flowing to the Customs Service in having it as a separate entity, but we are concerned that the way it is being done and the actual justification have not really been dealt with in any serious way by the Government in putting this very important proposition forward. It was these concerns that the Opposition endeavoured to have resolved through an amendment to refer the Bills to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in the other place. The Opposition called for explanation and justification of the establishment of the statutory position of the Comptroller-General, the relationship between this office and the Minister and its accountability, and a defined plan of administration and cost. In its report on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations established guidelines for the establishment of statutory authorities. We should support its approach that the creation of a new authority needs to be justified. The Committee recommended that a statement expressing specific reasons for preferring a statutory authority should be tabled with the legislation. It went on to recommend that, if such a statement is not tabled, or if the reasons given in the statement are not persuasive: . . . the Committee will request that the Senate refer the legislation to the Committee for investigation and report on the necessity for the creation of an authority. Therefore, it is not good enough for the Government to feel its way and to modify as it goes along some of the changes which will be implemented as a result of this legislation. The Opposition believes that legislation with such a direct and major impact should be thoroughly reviewed before any further inefficiency is allowed to creep into the Customs system. The errors of the past must be found and rooted out in all possible ways to ensure that Australia is protected and the personnel involved in Customs are able to carry out their activities in the most cost effective manner. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.56 a.m. (Tuesday). The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to move- The House of Representatives, recognizing the desirability of a thorough review of the Australian Constitution in the light of experience since its establishment and of modern day requirements, agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament continue its participation in the Australian Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves: (1) That, for the purposes of the Convention- (a) a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, and comprise 12 members of the Parliament of whom 4 shall be members of the Senate and 8 shall be members of the House of Representatives; (b) the 8 members of the House of Representatives comprise 4 members of the Australian Labor Party, 3 members of the Liberal Party of Australia and one member of the National Party of Australia. (2) That- (a) the Prime Minister and 3 other members of the House of Representatives, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by him; (b) the Leader of the Opposition and 2 other members of the House, being members of the Liberal Party of Australia, nominated by him; and (c) the Leader of the National Party of Australia or another member of the House, being a member of the National Party of Australia, nominated by the Leader of that Party, be members of the Delegation. (3) That the Prime Minister or his nominee be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee be the Deputy Leader. (4) That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if- (a) he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; (b) the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or (c) he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires. (5) That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of that member's Party may nominate an alternative member and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or that part of that meeting. (6) That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of that member's Party in the House from which that member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member. (7) That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time makes a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report. (8) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives. Mr West to 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: Upgrading of accommodation, Commonwealth Offices, 11 William Street, Melbourne. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 May 1985: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 69. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 67. Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 28-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 32-Sea-going Allowance. No. 33-Unpredictable Explosives Allowance. No. 34-Recreation Leave and Long Service Leave. Judiciary Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 66. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1985-Postal-Amendment No, 2 Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Defence-Simper, I.R. Determinations-1985-Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 65. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations- 1985/3-Holders of public offices on the Legal Aid Commission (ACT) and another body. 1985/4-Holders of public offices on the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and other bodies.