Wednesday, 11 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 concurrently with the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill 1985. As there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.01) —The severity of cost pressures on the agricultural export industries should not be underestimated. In recent years these industries have turned in an unusually sluggish export performance. Using constant prices, over the five years to 1983-84, total Australian export income rose by 4.5 per cent. Over that period, rural exports, accounting for 40 per cent or more of total income, fell into decline. Rural earnings in constant prices eased by 12.7 per cent, while the balance of non-rural exports rose by 20 per cent. Even the three-way economic boost in the 1982-83 financial year-the impact of the wages pause, drought-breaking rains and the upturn in the United States economy-has been slow to show up in the rural export figures. The only jump in rural export earnings of note occurred in 1984-85, influenced largely by the sudden crumbling of the dollar's value and the record wheat crop. The one-off influence of the devaluation is reflected in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimate of rural export income which is set to decline again in real terms this financial year. Yet it is these industries which hold the key to winding back Australian's foreign debt, spiralling from about $40 billion to around $70 billion in less than two years and to which we will be looking for some hope. With relatively small levels of effective assistance, Australian farmers are world leaders in efficiency. We know that many of the influences on these export-oriented industries, such as world prices, overseas economic trends and domestic seasonal conditions, can scarcely be controlled. It is all the more important to ensure that factors which can be controlled, especially domestic costs, do not impinge more than necessary on these industries. It is in this context that the action of the Hawke Labor Government in sending export inspection charges skyward-200 per cent or more for some major produce-gives us most concern. Its action has been described-I think quite rightly so-as economic vandalism. Mr Cobb —It is shameful. Mr HUNT —It is shameful. The Opposition will support the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill which are contingent Bills as they represent some effort to reduce the impact of export inspection charges on the industries concerned. We cannot make the point too forcefully, however, that this is much too little, much too late. If the Hawke Government was as fair dinkum about cutting farm costs as it claims it is, it would not be tinkering around the edges of these vastly increased charges which impact directly on primary export returns. The consistent policy position of the Liberal and National parties has been to remove export inspection charges and to bring our export industries more in line with those industries with which our agricultural industries are competing because it is clear that the burden our export industries are meeting is not being met by our competitors in the United States of America or anywhere else. Charges of the magnitude presently burdening rural exports, in particular the meat and the beef industry, have no place in the coalition platform. The amendment to be sought by the Opposition expresses its concern that inadequate consideration has taken place with the export industries concerned to ensure that the most efficient and cost effective method of export inspection is adopted. However, we will not seek to amend the substance of this legislation despite the criticism over the way in which it has been brought into the Parliament without adequate industry consultation. The farmers are grateful for the smallest of mercies from the Hawke Government, and as these Bills have some potential to ease export inspection costs they will enjoy the Opposition's full support. The purpose of the Bills is to expand the range of methods by which the inspection charges can be levied. The present flat rate or quantity-based charges will be supplemented by two other means of payment and a number of industries will be able to pay by any one method or by some combinations of methods. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill introduces a man-hour basis for payment; that is, the charge is levied over time instead of quality. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill introduces a charge upon registration or annual renewal of registration of an export licence. In summary, exporters in certain industries will have the option of any of these three methods of payment, or in some cases a combination of methods. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech on the service charge Bill, estimated that industries should eventually benefit through the streamlining of inspections by $18m per annum. Little or none of this benefit will be realised in the present financial year. The savings, by the time they are fully experienced, will be little more than a step in the right direction. Already under this Government the cost of inspections to industry has more than doubled from $23.9m in 1982-83 to $53m this year. That is quite a burden on industries that are struggling to maintain their footing in the world market scene. By the time full savings under these Bills are realised the difference will barely be noticeable to the industries. So it will be cynical in the extreme for honourable members opposite to argue that the Government has gone as far as it could be expected to remove the burden it has imposed. As I said earlier, the farmers are grateful for small mercies. Major primary industries utilising export inspection services are the meat, wool, grains, fruits, dairy produce and fish industries. Of these, the Australian fisheries will gain earliest access to the new charging systems. Fisheries are likely to opt for a change from the existing per kilogram charge to a combination of man-hour and registration charges. I note that, under clause 7 of the miscellaneous amendments Bill, once a commodity is subject to a service charge it cannot then be subject to a quantity charge. It is anticipated that the new system will be in place before the end of 1985. The poultry meat industry has recently agreed to payment on the basis of registration only. Other industries named by the Minister as having an interest in these Bills are the meat, dried fruits, canned fruits and dairy produce industries. It is important that the Parliament understand just what discussions have taken place. The Minister told this House that discussions had commenced with the meat industry. In fact he has broached the subject once, in a very preliminary fashion. He was told bluntly by the meat exporters that a fee for service was just not on. Why, then, does he appear keen to pursue these discussions? On what basis does the Minister-I hope he answers this question-estimate savings of $18m-- Mr Cobb —Where is the Minister? Mr HUNT —Yes, that is a good question: Where is the Minister? In any case he has advisers here who will be good enough to put the question to him. On what basis does the Minister estimate savings of $18m if the meat industry, accounting for 90 per cent of all export inspection revenue, rejects the changes to the method of payment? On what basis does he estimate those savings? There is wide concern within the industry that the Minister is attempting to force a fee for service on exporters and that this legislation represents a foot in the door. I am not saying that; that is what the industry, from discussions I have had with it, believes. Let it be said very clearly that the industry will not accept bullying tactics by the Minister, in the same way that the dairy industry would not be bludgeoned into submission. The abattoir chain typically experience fluctuations in supply and variations in killing hours per week. A flat charge would in no way represent a step towards the user pays principle. Rather, the meat industry could be severely disadvantaged through a fee for service payment, especially if the Minister were to attempt to force these charges on the industry at some later stage. I call on the Minister to give an undertaking, in his response to this debate, that the meat industry will continue to have total freedom in selecting the manner of payment which best suits its requirements. I have been asked to put that point forward in this debate here today. The industry wants a special undertaking in that regard. If the Minister can give that undertaking, I am sure it will be gratefully received. Mr Cobb —They won't even work at Mudginberri. Mr HUNT —That is absolutely correct. It is a disgrace. It is also curious that the Parliament has been asked to approve these Bills even though the dried and canned fruits industries and dairy producers have neither been advised nor consulted-- Mr Loyd-They were not consulted at all. Mr HUNT —They were not consulted at all, which to me seems an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr Lloyd —When you have SPC and Ardmona, the two biggest companies in the industry, not being consulted. Mr HUNT —It is an outrage. This has been the problem for the farm sector. There has been little or no consultation with so many of these industries that have been affected by legislation. The Minister has a responsibility to consult with these industries because, surely, we produce legislation in this Parliament in the interests of the industries that are supposed to be served by the elected representatives in this Parliament. This is not some monolithic institution. It is not some institution which makes laws apart from the interests of the industries or the people whom this Parliament is supposed to serve. The Parliament is here to serve the people. Every piece of legislation introduced into this place should be canvassed. I add, in fairness to him, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has attempted to adopt this principle. He has come in for much criticism for having had his summits and having tried to pull people together and to achieve consensus, which is hard to get. His Ministers should follow his example and enter into consultation before bringing legislation into this Parliament. Once again we are witnessing the reluctance of the Minister to ensure that full and proper consultation take place before legislation is presented to the Parliament. Farmers are sick and tired of learning about Bills after they have come into this place. Farmers should not be treated as third class citizens. I hope that the Minister has recognised, from the mistakes that he has already made with regard to the dairying industry, that such action will not serve him, his Government or the industries any good purpose. Inspection costs cannot be raised by 200 per cent or more without having serious repercussions on the competitiveness of our producers. On a number of occasions this Government has attempted to shift blame for its actions regarding inspection charges by claiming that our parties adopted the 50 per cent cost recovery principle. It is true that a move in this direction was indicated in 1981. However, 1982-83 Budget Paper No. 1 sets out clearly why the Fraser Government did not pursue this course. The industries were hit savagely by drought, experiencing heavy increases in debt, and could not be expected to foot such additional cost so the right decision was made because of the circumstances of the industry and its inability to meet these sorts of charges at that time, and the same situation applies today. The decision to increase inspection charges was abandoned because of the declining terms of trade of farmers. I can understand the battles the Minister has, because when I was a Minister I had the same sorts of battles. The Department of the Treasury constantly tries to do the right and proper thing for the macroeconomic conditions of the economy, but to do these things across the board without taking into account the circumstances or problems of an industry or a sector of the community can only bring great hardship upon sectors of the Australian community. It is all very well to say that we should have a user pay principle. If one applied that sort of principle to the urban public, the people the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) represents, how much would public transport cost the average commuter going to his job? There is no suggestion that there should be a user pay principle in the city of Sydney. It costs about $1.5m a day in Sydney to help move people from western Sydney to their place of employment. Enormous subsidies are being paid in that regard. Where is the user pay concept being adopted for the average citizens? The people whom I and so many honourable members of this Parliament represent today have reached income levels one-third of average weekly earnings. I am not talking about wealthy farmers, those of us who were lucky enough to inherit our farms; I am talking about soldier settlers, people who have struggled on small blocks to make ends meet and have not been trained for any other form of activity. These people today are in great financial difficulty. There is a new poverty in the Australian community, as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) is aware. He is honest enough to stand up to fight for the people affected, and I know he has tried to do that. There is an obligation on all of us to represent the rural people who have problems. He is in the wrong party; he ought to be on this side of the House to join with us to fight on their behalf. Mr Hand —Tell us about how you are going to protect them against telephone charges. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr Hand —Can you answer the question? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HUNT —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly would not want to provoke him. The industries affected by this legislation have been hit savagely by drought. They are experiencing an increasingly heavy debt load. The total debt of the farm sector is now in excess of $6,000m. Many farmers are paying up to 20 per cent interest through their banks. Who can survive paying 20 per cent interest? Who can survive in business paying 15, 16, 17, 18 or 20 per cent interest year after year? I can think of no more crippling impost than the interest rate burden; it is far worse than the burden of export inspection charges. The decision to increase inspection charges was therefore abandoned, as I said, in 1981 because of the declining terms of trade of farmers. By contrast, this anti-farmer Government could not care less about the plight of the rural sector. The now Prime Minister, in his rural policy speech in 1983, said: At the outset of this campaign I make an unqualified commitment to maintaining the viability of Australia's great rural sector and the provincial infrastructure. That great undertaking was made at that time, and yet we have seen in three Budgets and two mini-Budgets $442m ripped off the Australian farm sector. Is that the sort of recognition and unqualified commitment necessary to maintain the viability of Australia's great rural sector, pressured today by the internal costs and pressured by the European Economic Community in our international market scene? I know that the Minister for Primary Industry, who is in the House at the moment, is concerned about the activities of the European Economic Community and has done a fairly good job in highlighting that difficulty. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics report has been a very constructive attempt to present some of the options that surely are available to the EEC countries to handle their own domestic problems but not, at the same time, to disrupt world trade to the extent that they are. These industrial nations would not for one minute have industry and manufacturing outside the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. But so far as agriculture is concerned they can stay outside the terms of GATT because agriculture involves only damned farmers, a minority group in the community. It is the Third World countries, the developing countries, and countries like Australia that will suffer while ever that continues. That is one of the great challenges. It is no good fighting on that international front unless we try to recognise the problems here at home. What sort of argument do we have to put in Brussels if the Government loads the farm sector with export inspection charges, if it rips off $442m in three Budgets and two mini-Budgets? Mr Andriesson and others surely would be saying: `If the Government is really concerned about the farm sector and the welfare of the farmers of Australia it surely would be attacking the problem in its own backyard'. When the Government singles farmers out for treatment, as it has done, it makes its attempts fairly hollow. Without warning the Labor Government announced in its first Budget a 200 per cent leap in export inspection charges. There was no election forecast, no prior warning. Mr Brumby —That is your policy. Why don't you be truthful about it? Mr HUNT —It was indeed our policy but it was a principle that was never implemented. The honourable member should go back to the Budget Papers of 1982-83, before he came here. The reasons were spelled out. My dear friend the honourable member for Bendigo needs to be very cautious and careful on this issue and should get in there and fight his own people. He should make sure he fights them on the right matters, because if he does not he will not be here as the member for Bendigo after the next election. The Government has consistently sought out the farm industries for special treatment ever since the Prime Minister's speech in 1983. The decision to raise the charges caused such an uproar within the meat industry that the Minister for Primary Industry was forced to refer the new rates to the Interim Inspection Policy Council for review. The Government then proceeded to ignore the strong stand by the Council-a very reasonable stand-for a two-year moratorium on the increases. Labor simply could not wait to get its hands in the farmers' and meat exporters' pockets. It is worth recalling the statement of the Australian Meat Exporters' Federal Council of 25 July 1984: The IIPC package was a reasonable approach, yet the Minister discarded the critical sections of the package without any consultation with the industry. This makes a mockery of the Hawke Government's stated commitment to consultation and consensus. The export inspection charges are a good example of the wide variance in attitude towards primary industry which exists between members on either side of this House. The Liberal- National Party policy, laid out prior to the election last December, gives this commitment: The Commonwealth will co-operate with industry bodies and the States concerned to ensure that the inspection is efficiently conducted without duplication and at the Commonwealth's expense. It is pleasing to note there has been some pro- gress in removing duplication of services. The big obstacle to improved competitiveness, however, is the continuing high level of export charges. To underline this commitment I foreshadow the following amendment: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that inadequate consultation has taken place with the export industries concerned to ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective export inspection system is adopted. Madam Deputy Speaker, recently the Chairman of the Australian Meat Exporters' Federal Council, Mr Kevin Bowtell, indicated that bur- eaucratic regulation within the meat industry is now costing perhaps $20m a year. Among the findings of the Cameron Committee is that, since trials began in 1983, the objective meat exporttrade descriptions have not effectively served their purpose. The Committee also believes that export inspections by the Commonwealth should be restricted to such areas as health and hygiene and to assist with the development of a national description service. In general, there is an impression that export inspections are heavy with red tape, and that significant cost savings are achievable. I note the Minister's reaction that he wants further study into these matters. Our meat industries face severe competition in terms of both price and market access, especially along the Asian-Pacific basin rim. If some of the more intensive aspects of inspection services can be modified this saving could well be translated into significant savings. The Export Inspection Service has a staff of 2,500, and I know efforts are presently under way to streamline the service and reduce staff numbers by natural attrition without compromising the standard of the service. Meat inspector numbers have been reduced by 300, mainly in the area of post-mortem inspection procedures, while the number of staff attending to inspection of canned and frozen fruit and vegetables has been lowered from 40 to 11. New procedures for some industries, which include `flying squads' of inspectors checking produce at random, in many cases may serve the same purpose as more intensive inspection procedures. In government the Liberal and National parties will review the inspection service to establish whether further cost savings are achievable. Industries will be invited to submit proposals to overcome such difficulties as those experienced by the live sheep export trade in the calculation of charges according to specific consignments rather than total shipments-a problem which has unnecessarily raised the cost of inspections beyond an equitable level. The Liberal and National parties will continue to pressure the Hawke Labor Government to reverse its decision imposing heavy export inspection cost increases on the agricultural export industries at a time when they are facing severe competition on a corrupted world market. These Bills are a step in the right direction, but they are by no means adequate. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that inadequate consultation has taken place with the export industries concerned to ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective export inspection system is adopted'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hawker —I second the amendment. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.29) —The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has again been fulfilling a negative role-the negative role that the Opposition has been developing. I thought we were told yesterday that such a role would finish and that the Opposition would give the Government credit where it was due. But I shall return to the honourable member for Gwydir shortly. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the introduction of the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill, because they are further evidence of his commitment to the rural sector and the need to reduce farm costs by making government involvement more cost-efficient for the farm producer. We must have meat inspection because of the present international and national requirements and the fact that government is required to have involvement on and off the slaughter floor by overseas governments; and our State governments also require involvement in varying degrees in inspection. Inspection is also required by the purchasing countries on a range of our primary products other than meat-for instance, fish and dairy products. The maintenance of a high level of quality is important if we are to hold our current export markets or establish new ones. Inspection is costly, and it is the high cost that is of concern to the Government. Most key agricultural exporting countries impose inspect- ion charges, with costs in European countries ranging from 50 per cent to 100 per cent cost recovery. New Zealand will have two-thirds cost recovery by 1986, and the United States of America will have 100 per cent cost recovery over three years. Australia's cost recovery rate is 50 per cent. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has been fulfilling that negative role of opposition in his speech today. He has been ignoring the export inspection charge shambles which was handed over to this Government in 1983. I take as an example the abalone industry. Under the system of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, with the present new identikit economic rationalist, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as Treasurer, the total weight of abalone was added-shell, water, the lot-and a rate per kilogram was charged. That was a totally unfair system for an industry which has got itself together nationally. The industry has done that, and this Government is prepared to respond. Having been involved in the negotiations with Barry McRoberts of Ulladulla and Max Cartner of Eden, the Government has responded, contrary to the statement by the honourable member for Gwydir, to representations from the industry. Instead of charging on the basis of weight, the new system will charge on the basis of staff time. Contrary to the words of the honourable member for Gwydir, the Government has been trimming the inspection force to reduce costs. The service was reduced by 120 inspectors in 1984. Export inspection cost Australia about $102m in 1984-85, and the Government met about $60m of that cost. This Government has been able to absorb increased costs to close to $10.5m in 1985-86, and the charges will remain the same in 1985-86 as they were in 1984-85. Whilst the aim must be to reduce these costs to rural producers as much as possible and to withdraw inspectors, it is important that the inspection system is such that it guarantees overseas market acceptability for our primary products. Any deregulation or withdrawal of the Government from present areas of inspection must be done in such a way as to ensure that overseas countries' requirements and State requirements are met and that integrity of product is protected so that it can be sold. The legislation before us ensures this protection and, at the same time, allows cost reduction and a more equitable base for the calculation of export inspection charges. The Commonwealth first introduced meat export inspection in 1914 and the concept of export inspection charges in the 1920s. An export inspection service was set up in 1982 following the meat substitution scandal and it assumed responsibilities for inspection from the Bureau of Animal Health. The Export Inspection Service's role is regulatory, with responsibility for providing an efficient and effective inspection service for primary industry products to ensure that they are safe and wholesome, that they are informatively and honestly described and that product standards comply with the requirements of importing countries to facilitate trade. At present the Government recoups a proportion of the cost of export inspection through charges based on quantity. Under these arrangements producers are charged at an equal rate regardless of the actual cost of inspection. As a result producers who have brought in efficient methods of inspection pay the same as other producers although their actual cost of inspection may be lower. Despite strong representations from rural producers and processors for a change to a more equitable and efficient system the previous Government failed to act. Instead of talking about selling to multinationals and quasi-government organisations, such as Telecom Australia, which turns its profits back to the people of Australia, the Leader of the Opposition would have done better as Treasurer to attempt some genuine cost reducing reforms, the sorts of reforms which this Government has undertaken since coming to office in 1983 and which these Bills provide. This Government is genuine about its efforts to rationalise and reduce the costs of government involvement in industry. The changes to export inspection that are proposed in these Bills will save our rural industries over $18m a year. Dual State-Commonwealth fees will be eliminated and new inspection arrangements introduced. Industry will have the option of moving to an alternative charging system. Under the new alternative method of calculating charges to be introduced by these Bills, establishments will have the option of paying an initial registration fee and charges based on the time inspection takes. This will provide an incentive for efficiency and will relate charges more closely to actual cost. Exporters will be able to choose the method of inspection they feel is best suited to their pro- duct in terms of cost efficiency. They may remain under the present system or they may move to a system involving a registration fee and a per hour inspector rate. Both the fish and poultry meat industries have opted for a basic establishment registration fee and subsequent charges calculated on the actual time taken to inspect. The Export Inspection Charges (Miscellan- eous Amendments) Bill will ensure that establishments that have opted for a service charge will be exempt from quantity charges. This will prevent double charging. Farm costs have slowed to an average rise of 6.2 per cent under this Government from a staggering 10.9 per cent under the previous Government. From the statements made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) we would not have known that farm cost rises have actually dropped by over 4 per cent from 10.9 to 6.2 per cent. These Bills are part of the Government's continuing efforts to reduce those costs even further. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.39) —The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) probably said it all when he stumbled a bit in his last few words about which way costs were going. The housewives of Australia know which way they are going. It is interesting that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) and delegates to the Australian Council of Trade Union Congress started telling the Government yesterday where costs were going. They are telling the Government that its figures are rubbery and that even its inflation figures are rubbery. The housewife's handbag is telling her, just as the farmer's cheque book or overdraft is telling him, that costs are going up a lot more than the Government is admitting. The ACTU Congress delivered that message yesterday. The Australian Labor Party's own instructors, its own issuers of orders-- Mr Brumby —Are you saying that the figures-- Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member cannot say that the ACTU Congress yesterday did not say that grocery prices are rising twice as fast as the rate of inflation. That is in black and white in the Press today. The honourable member for Canning is running around with his little price watch saying, as is the ACTU Congress, that the grocers are the villains in the piece. The villains in the piece are honourable members opposite and their policies. Farmers know that equally as well. Let us have a look at prices as they relate to inspection charges. In 1981-82 meat and livestock inspection charges yielded $45.4m in revenue. In other words, those were charges levied on the farmers whom the Government is bleeding to death. I note that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is leaving the chamber. He should stay to listen to my speech. He might learn something so he could help some people. His Party is completely dominated by the ACTU. He does not worry about the people that he has been elected to represent and he scuttles out of the chamber as soon as someone says that his Government is wrong. In 1981-82, $19.3m was all that the farmers of Australia had to pay in meat inspection charges. Honourable members opposite keep throwing back at us the fact that we were going to charge 50 per cent of costs. Of course we were, but it would not have been 50 per cent of the sorts of costs that the Government imposed. Nobody is worried about percentages; farmers are worried about the bottom line, and what the charges will cost them. I will tell honourable members what it is costing them now compared with what it cost them in 1981-82. Just three years later, under this Government, inspection charges have risen to $46.8m. The Government will actually have to spend $90.2m. In other words, the balance of approximately $44m will have to come from the taxpayer to maintain the Government's grossly inefficient scheme. That is the message that the farmers have got. I shall give honourable members another message. Many people in the country who are loyal Labor voters must be asking themselves, as they go to the petrol pumps, what they have been getting for their votes all these years. I refer to the townspeople in all the rural cities who have to take their kids 20 or 30 miles to a football match. They cannot get the subsidised buses that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) referred to a moment ago. They cannot put their children on those buses; they have to take them in a car. Honourable members opposite know what the bowser price of fuel is for their loyal Labor voters. They cannot tell me that that is what people want. Mr Campbell —Who invented parity pricing? Mr TUCKEY —I will give the honourable member parity pricing. Maintaining parity pricing is a commitment of the honourable member's Government. That is not the problem. If the honourable member had half a grain of sense he would know that. Government taxes have put up the price of fuel. The Government has indexed the excise and has been pushing it up. A rebate has been given to the farmers, but the Government's loyal Labor voters have been left out. All the miners in Kalgoorlie have to pay the price that the honourable member's Government has imposed upon them. All those loyal Labor voters are getting it right in the neck with petrol prices at the bowser, and the honourable member's Government set those prices. He cannot give me any rubbish. He is a Government member, and there is no excuse whatsoever. The Government gives us history lessons all the time. If it wants to give us a history lesson, it should have a look at what the Whitlam Government did to the Australian economy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I think it would be a good idea if the honourable member got back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —This issue is about costs to the community. It is just another little fraud and another little shift to get a little more. I say again that costs to the farming community between 1981-82 and 1985-86 jumped from $19.3m to $46.8m. The expenditure cost-in other words, the total cost to the community-is a jump from $45.4m to $90.2m. In four years expenditure has risen by 98.7 per cent. Even the grocery watch of the honourable member for Canning will not tell us that those sorts of figures exist. Even the ACTU, with its complaints about groceries, will not tell us those figures. What about the revenue figure? The burden on the farming community has risen by 142.5 per cent. Honourable members opposite are pretty good on percentages. They should try to argue their way out of that. That is what they have done and that is the burden they have created. They talk about saving $18m, and I shall raise questions about that. Basically, this legislation proposes a change from a quantity measure to a time measure. It proposes charging for time. There can be an annual registration charge or an hourly charge. There has been some suggestion that farmers may volunteer to follow either proposal. I do not know how often they will be able to change their minds and opt for one system or the other. Anybody who has any idea at all about the operations of the meat industry and abattoirs knows that they are both seasonal and cyclical. On a day to day basis there can be a substantial drop in the throughput of a works for all sorts of reasons, including some that are contributed to by the masters of the Australian Labor Party Government. If the Transport Workers Union turns off the transport there is no throughput on that day, and so on. Under the present arrangements the charge is per head of stock that is put through. The burden of foolishly providing all these public servants for an industry as cyclical and as seasonal as the meat industry is that they have got to hang around. We do not change their numbers on the basis of an industry that moves around so briefly. In fact, they have to be there almost on an annual basis. They are the best contributors to the tobacco industry that we know of because they are all at the back of the toilet having a smoke half the time. Mr Hunt —Who is this? Mr TUCKEY —The inspectors. There is nothing for them to do half the time. The meat inspection service is a Public Service operation. The inspectors are all jacked up there and, irrespective of the operations in the works, that is what happens. At least the works has a minor protection at the moment. Mr Hunt —They are having a great old bludge up there at Mudginberri. Mr TUCKEY —We will talk about Mudginberri too and how this Government has betrayed Australia. But we will get on to that in due course. The legislation will turn the service from a unit basis to a time basis. When that unit basis goes on- Mr Campbell —Tell us about meat substitution. Mr TUCKEY —We can talk about meat substitution and we can talk about the involvement of the Government's meat inspection service. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the House that meat substitution and other topics do not fall within the very narrow confines of the three Bills before the House. Mr TUCKEY —We are talking about the meat inspection services and other services. Quite clearly the matter which has been raised by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), at his own initiative, must surely be worrying him and some other member on that side of the House and, as such, it must be canvassed. I was referring to the prosposal to move away from a unit cost. Mr Campbell —Tell us about meat substitution. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —Yes, that is quite interesting, is it not? The last time I remember the honourable member coming into this chamber and welcoming me to say something he went out with his tail between his legs. At the moment the cost is at least restricted to a unit cost. Even if the stock is not there the Government chooses to impose this form of meat inspection service. I have spoken at length on previous occasions as to why it is quite inappropriate for the Government to provide the basic services of meat inspection. But the reality of all this is that when we move to a time basis, will the time of all those inspectors be imposed on a works, or will it be the fact that on a bad day when the work is down that the management of the abattoir can say: `Look, we only want three inspectors today. I know you always provide us with 10-five are always out at the back having a smoke anyway. Are we going to have to pay for the seven we do not need today?' That is the situation that exists at present. On a per capita basis the management pays only on throughput. The Government is saying: `We have this new fancy scheme to help you out'. The Government knows very well the gross inefficiencies of trying to address this type of industry with fixed, full time employees. Honourable members should wait and see how long it is before the word `voluntary' goes out of the arrangement and the squeeze goes on. The Government will say: `We are going to give you 10 inspectors. The gross cost of 10 inspectors is such that it is up to you to keep the throughput in your works. You go out and get the meat. That is your problem'. That is the message for the processing industry from this legislation. It is a typical thin edge of the wedge. That is where it is going to go. Do not worry about that. That is the problem that will exist for the meat industry. The Government does not like the side of the ledger that says that it has cost it $90.2m while it is only recovering $45.8m. It wants a bit more and it wants it to be paid by the processors who, of course, will adjust their auction prices accordingly and transfer it to where the buck always stops-with the farmer. That is the message. It is just identifying the gross inefficiencies which is all done on a premise that does not exist. If I were to put this question to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as I did to the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, I would still get the same answer. On 25 March 1981 I asked the following question: Is there any evidence that the countries importing meat from Australia demand that the Federal Government must pay the wages of meat inspectors? In other words, is there any demand that the Government be their employer? The answer-it is recorded in Hansard-is no. Absolutely no such requirement is demanded by importing countries. Yet what do we have? The other day the Minister for Primary Industry told us in regard to the Mudginberri abattoir dispute that the Government was not responsible for losing the export contract and that the meat in cold storage had been killed on the assumption that it was intended for the domestic market. An article which appeared in the Canberra Times on 11 September reports the Minister as saying: Sending this meat overseas would threaten the good reputation of the Hawke Government . . . I did not think the Government had that much reputation left! On the other hand, it might have a little reputation left in regard to raw meat. However, that is about all the reputation it has. It is well below a raw prawn. The article states: Sending this meat overseas would threaten the good reputation of the Hawke Government, which had to battle against the meat industry's poor image acquired under a previous Government after the Royal Commission into the meat-distribution scandal. What did the Royal Commissioner tell us? He told us that the Export Inspection Service was a disaster. He said that it was inefficient and that there was evidence of corruption. That is what he told us. It is in the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. He told us something else in paragraph 9.5, page 267, of the report. He said: So far as is practicable, in the light of overseas requirements and sound meat inspection practices, managements should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on the chain now performed by meat inspectors. That is what Mr Justice Woodward told this Parliament. Paragraph 9.5 continues: The numbers of meat inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average, their work should become more responsible and call for greater experience and higher personal qualities. Why is the Government not taking that advice from the Royal Commissioner? It has floated his name around plenty of times. If the Government were to take his advice it would not need the legislation which is before us today and which is just another fraud. The Government has its silver-haired boy running around the countryside offering $18m when, in fact, it will take more back. As I said, the legislation is totally perpetrated so that the Government can get meat inspection on to a time basis instead of a unit basis and, on slack days in the abattoir, get full payment for men who have nothing to do, men whom the Government sends there but does not know what to do with. The Government is stuck with them because of the system. I have argued time and again, as has the Royal Commissioner, that the responsibility of Government is to supervise meat exports. That can be done with well paid people acting in a supervisory role. One or more inspector could be employed for a large works and a travelling man for other works. Some honourable members opposite will jump up straight away and give me the following argument: `But think of the levels of corruption that will be on with those nasty free enterprise blokes'. The Minister said it about Mudginberri. He said: `We could not let this meat go overseas without our magic wand being waved over it'. Mr Jay Pendarvis up at Mudginberri has specialised markets. He deals directly with overseas importers. Does the Government think he is fool enough to send them bodgie meat? We know how the bodgie meat got through Protean (Holdings) Ltd. We know about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) with all his contact. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will return to the Bills. Mr TUCKEY —I believe that in this area I am very close to the Bills, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that inspection charges are to be increased. I am giving the reasons why they are going up. They are not going down. We are just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic with this legislation. It is not addressing any of the problems that exist. It is about time this Government and its silver-haired Minister who wanders around telling the rural communities `I am your friend, trust me' woke up. I would like to be the fly on the wall in the Cabinet room when the Minister sells them out day after day as he is selling them out with this legislation. Of course people who produce meat and make direct sales do not need this level of protection. Of course the importing countries demand that the Government of Australia guarantee the product. However, up in Mudginberri were four fully qualified inspectors of the Northern Territory Government. Yet the Minister insults those people's integrity, saying: `It is because our blokes were not there. That is the thing'. I put forward evidence of some of the costs we are to adjust by this legislation. In my electorate we have a large abattoir. It employs eight meat inspectors who are provided by the Shire of Northam. There was a time, not that long ago, when they could be compared directly with Commonwealth inspectors at the same works. Every one of those local government inspectors had better qualifications than those provided by the Commonwealth. However, what was the cost to the works? On present figures, it was $10.80 a bullock for the Commonwealth inspection service and $2.80 for the local government service. How can one adjust to that? Mr Brumby —Those figures are absurd; you know that. Mr TUCKEY —They are not absurd. One can add the cost of a veterinarian to them and some of the unnecessary charges down the line. What about doubling it? Let us make it $5.60 to the Government's charge of $10.80. It is still a great difference. Honourable members opposite do not know what they are talking about. That is their problem. The reality is in the figures. The reality is in a housewife's handbag when she hands over a $50 bill at the grocery shop and finds that it will not pay for the groceries it paid for a month ago. The reality for the farmer is the bottom line of his bank account which is getting bigger and bigger-not in pluses, but in overdraft. That is where the money is going. It is the burden of Government. It is the burden of honourable members opposite who cannot see that there is an acceptable solution. The acceptable solution is what I have been telling them about, at least ever since they have been in Government. It is a pity that the Government would not take my advice occasionally. It is so blinded by what the Australian Council of Trade Unions tells it. Let us have a quick look at export inspection. Government members will jump up and say how important it is for the Government to be involved. We all fly to Parliament every week with Trans Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and others. Who inspects and certifies all those aeroplanes, their engines and every part of them? They are extremely safe. We are all proud of the performance of our airline industry. Who inspects the aeroplanes? Employees of the airlines inspect them. Will honourable members opposite not fly home next week because they did not have a Government inspector? The evidence of the Woodward Royal Commission was that meat inspectors were taking backhanders and were corrupt, particuarly in an area well known to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, namely, Protean. That is where it all happened. That is where the kangaroo was going in. Richmond City Council was also doing pretty well out of it. It is a disgrace-the Government's disgrace. Yet the Government brings in these Bills today. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gwydir. The Government did not do anything to help anybody. It still has a lousy system. The costs are running off the board. It talks about a single meat inspection service and then says to the Australian public: `Pay the highest price'. Is that not wonderful? I have given honourable members opposite the evidence of price. I have given it to the Minister. I have also told him all about what is going on in the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. Yet he still dodges and ducks on that issue. It is costing the community money. He says that he does not know how to fix the situation. That is one of the few things on which I can agree with him. He does not know how to fix it. Mr Campbell —You are a shocking charlatan. Mr TUCKEY —I gave the honourable member a threat once before and he screamed like hell to the Speaker. He said: `I want your protection'. So the honourable member should not call me names, or I will give him the same threat. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will put his name on the speakers list if he wishes to speak. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie squealed. He put paper over his head and said: `I desire the protection of the Speaker'. He should not forget. It is recorded in Hansard. So let him not call me names. These Bills are a fraud. They are the first step by this Government to get a system whereby it can be guaranteed its money at the expense of the industry. I would not like to see the legislation enacted at all. Nevertheless, we have moved an amendment which at least highlights the situation. This Government has to face up to the community in the end. It will. The community is waking up. As I said, the Government's own loyal voters are learning what it is has done at the petrol pump. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.58) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, the Export Inspection(Service Charge) Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill. I will spend some of my time on the precise nature of the Bills- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Chair hopes that you will spend all your time on them. Mr BRUMBY —I used the word `precise', Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some precise points about the Bills and some more general points about them. The primary purpose of these Bills is to extend the range of options for imposing charges on industry to recoup part of the costs of inspecting rural produce for export. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill provides an option for a charge to be imposed on a manhour basis. The Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charge) Bill provides for a charge to be made upon the registration of an export-registered establishment where this is requested by an industry. The Export Inspection Charges (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which, in a sense, provides amendments consequential on the other Bills, will ensure that there is greater flexibility in the future in the way in which export inspection charges are calculated. These Bills are important. Contrary to what has been said by some of the Opposition speakers, they provide meaningful options for charging inspection costs. They do that on a basis which accords fairly closely to the user pays concept. Under current arrangements, export inspection is carried out for a range of different products in a range of establishments such as abattoirs, fruit canneries and fish processing plants. A flat rate charge is imposed and that rate is imposed regardless of the cost and type of establishment. The new method of recouping costs embodied in this legislation will give industry an opportunity to streamline its operations. It will promote more fairness in the application of inspection charges and, perhaps more importantly, it will provide and allow for more efficiency in the delivery and use of the inspection services which are provided. Honourable members would be aware that a major review of inspection services has recently been completed. As a result, simplified inspection procedures will be introduced between now and June 1986, which will lead to significant savings in the cost of running the inspection service and immediate cost savings to industry. The new arrangements in terms of those cost savings will benefit industry by some $18m per annum. Those new arrangements have been taken into account in calculating the charges which will apply through the 1985-86 financial year. Let me give a brief summary of the legislation. The charging legislation in this package of Bills will enable industries to make a choice. They can opt for the new charging system which will encourge individual operators to establish systems which reduce their export inspection needs and costs while maintaining the required standards, which are crucial, of hygiene and quality. Alternatively, under this legislation, they can remain on the current flat rate charging system whereby operators with less expensive export inspection systems tend to cross-subsidise the operators with more expensive systems of inspection. These new charging arrangements provide industry with an opportunity to work positively with the Government to reduce costs to farmers and to taxpayers who, of course, subsidise inspection activity. The element of cost savings and the more efficient use of resources, which are embodied in this legislation are crucial to Australia's primary producers and those in the export market. If we look at Australia's exports and its export performance for the last financial year we appreciate the enormous importance of exports, in particular agricultural exports, to Australia's overall prosperity and, in that sense, these Bills are important. Total Australian exports for 1984-85 were $30.6 billion. It is significant that of that sum $11.1 billion were agricultural exports. In other words, 36 per cent of Australia's total exports come from the agricultural sector. In terms of specific products, most of which, of course, are affected by this legislation, wheat brought in $2.7 billion worth of exports last year and that is almost 10 per cent of Australia's total exports. Wool brought in $2.4 billion in exports which is about 6 per cent or 7 per cent of Australia's total exports. Beef is obviously an important aspect of this legislation in terms of inspection charges. Boneless beef brought in over $1 billion and other beef $37m. So there is over $1 billion worth of exports of beef. Fish and other exports which, in terms of this legislation are important, brought in more than $400m. On the other side, exports of lamb, goat and mutton products-a good market-brought in $150m. I think the broad figures are worth repeating. Of a total of $30.6 billion worth of exports from Australia more than $11 billion comes from agriculture. That is 36.2 per cent of total exports. We are talking about exports. In terms of those basic exports, particularly meat and fish products, these export inspection Bills are important. Without the effort embodied in these Bills to make the system more efficient and more cost effective and, at the same time, to retain our international reputation as an exporter, we could not hope to maintain those high levels of agricultural exports. A number of claims have been made by Opposition speakers during the debate on this legislation. I note that the Opposition is not opposing this legislation although it has moved a minor amendment to it. The most interesting points to come out of the Opposition's contribution to this debate were the very conflicting accounts of the Opposition's policy on export inspection that were given by the spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the Opposition spokesman on primary industry, was totally emphatic that, under the Fraser Government, there was never any intention of proceeding with 50 per cent cost recovery in the export sector. That was the view that the spokesman on primary industry put but, of course, only a matter of minutes later, when the honourable member for O'Connor was speaking, he made it quite clear that he took an equally opposite direction; that the Fraser Government was going to move to 50 per cent cost recovery in those industries. So there is quite a difference in approach between those two representatives on the Opposition benches. I am not sure that they knew what they were going to do in government. I think one message is evident if we look back in retrospect. We can see now that the Opposition did not know at the time what its policies for the primary sector were or should have been. I do not think it knew where it was going in the future. What has come out of today's debate is that if the Opposition ever got the chance of being in government again it would still have no idea at all of whether it would endorse the 50 per cent cost recovery or whether it might go to some other system. I think that point ought to be emphasised. A number of other points were made during the debate. Again the honourable member for O'Connor made some points regarding fuel prices and he made them very aggressively as is his wont in this House. I just make the point for the interest of honourable members that the index of fuel prices paid by the Australian primary producers-the figures are not rubbery, cooked or crooked, as some people on the Opposition benches might like to suggest-shows an increase of 40 per cent in 1979-80. That was not under our Government; it was under the Liberal-National Party Government. In 1980-81 fuel prices increased by 25 per cent. Two increases have occurred under the Hawke Government. In 1983-84 there was an increase of 8 per cent and in 1984-85 there was an increase of 8 per cent. I want to correct this misapprehension, this misguided-I hope-enthusiasm that the honuorable member for O'Connor has in his concern for the rural constituency. He needs to get his figures right because this Government is concerned about farm costs. We have taken an enormous number of initiatives to reduce farm costs so that our export markets and our primary producers can be more competitive and stand on their own feet in the world market. I just want quickly to run through those farm costs because this legislation will also play an important part in reducing costs to those exporting sectors. I wish to run through the figures for the last few years, and I do this for the benefit of the honourable member of Wannon (Mr Hawker) who seems to have some difficulty understanding the figures prepared by the Bureau of Agricultrual Economics. The honourable member is in the House. It is nice to see him in the House. Only one member of the Liberal Party of Australia is in the House. Members of that Party are not too interested in this legislation or how it affects primary producers. For the honourable member's benefit, I will run through these figures. The percentage increase in farm costs was 12 per cent in 1976-77; 11 per cent in 1977-78 and 7 per cent in 1978-79. Here comes the good part; it is bad for farmers and in terms of the Opposition's record: There was a 12 per cent increase in 1979-80; a 15 per cent increase in 1980-81; an 11 per cent increase in 1981-82 and an 11 per cent increase in 1982-83. That is what happened. I see that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is in the House. He has an interest in this legislation and he has an interest in Australia's rural sector. He is staggered by the increase. The average percentage increase in farm costs under the Opposition when it was in government was more than 12 per cent per annum. The relevant figures under this Government-I know that the Minister will be interested-are 8 per cent in 1983-84 and 6 per cent in 1984-85, and the estimate for this year is around the 6 per cent mark. In other words, the rate of increase in farm costs has halved under this Government. Mr Hawker —What about the terms of trade? Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member asks about the terms of trade. His spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir, only moments ago complimented our Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the efforts he is making overseas, as is our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to get the best possible markets for our exports and to get our foot again into the European Economic Community in order to get rid of some of its corruptive trade practices so that there is a fair go for Australian producers. This Bill is concerned with the costs to our exporting primary industries. This Government remains totally committed to reduce farm costs as much as possible for Australia's export industries and primary producers. There is no doubt that in that broad sense the single greatest contribution we can make, which is a point made often by our excellent Minister for Primary Industry, is to get the economy right. That is the single greatest contribution we can make to improve the returns to farmers. A fair assessment by Opposition members-there is not one single National Party member in the House now-would indicate that we have done our part in getting the economy right. We have achieved the best growth for two years of any country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We have halved the rate of inflation. We have floated the dollar-something that the Opposition never had the courage to do. We have deregulated the banking system to put some competition into it. We have reduced industrial disputation to its lowest level for 17 years and real labour unit costs are down to the levels of the early 1960s. That is what we are doing for our export industries, our primary producers, because we want them to be cost effective and cost competitive and we want them to be able to stand on their own two feet in the export market. We are getting the economy right. The floating of the dollar and its devaluation alone have brought a net benefit to Australia's primary producers of many hundreds of millions of dollars. In terms of the full year effect, the wool industry should be better off by more than $200m, the beef industry by more than $300m, and the wheat industry by more than $800m because we floated the dollar and let it find its real level. But it is not only through the broad macro-economic policies that we have introduced that we have been able to reduce the farm costs for our primary producers. We have done other things to maximise the returns for our farmers. We have completely reorganised the meat and livestock industry. We have restructured it. We have put policy ahead of politics. We have given our statutory marketing authorities some commercial freedom to maximise returns for farmers. We have introduced new wheat marketing arrangements. They are the result of tough but fair negotiations which the Minister handled. They now provide a sound basis for this industry to maintain market access in what is an increasingly competitive world environment. Only three weeks ago in the Federal Budget, the third Budget this Government has brought down, we provided for a full rebate on the excise on diesel fuel which is used by primary producers. This is at a cost of $35m per annum. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member is straying away from the Bills before the House. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been straying just a little. I turn now to the legislation because it is crucial to Australia's primary producers. It is encouraging more effective and efficient practices in our export establishments. I will conclude with this remark: The honourable member for O'Connor made another point about the cost of meat inspection. He cited some amazing figures-he did not tell us how he calculated them-for an abattoir in his electorate and virtually said that the cost of Commonwealth meat inspection was three or four times the cost of inspection provided by local government. I want to make a point on that. I have a very large abattoir in my electorate-in fact I have a number of abattoirs in Bendigo-called Mayfair Hams and Bacon Co., which are basically pig abattoirs. Two years ago the company revoked its export licence. The reason it did that was that it exports only 10 per cent of its local product and the dual inspection fee for the export and local product that was killed at that abattoir was literally destroying the effectiveness and competitiveness of that establishment. Of course, if one calculated the cost per beast at that abattoir, the cost per beast of exported goods was higher for Commonwealth inspectors than for State government inspectors because Commonwealth inspectors had to inspect 100 per cent of the produce that was killed, even though only 10 per cent of it was exported. Of course, if one calculated the cost per animal exported in that establishment, the cost for the Commonwealth export inspectors would be higher because only one out of every 10 beasts was being exported whereas, to maintain the quality standards in that establishment, every beast had to be inspected. Of course the costs come out higher on that basis. It is real pie in the sky stuff for the honourable member for O'Connor to cite those figures, which are fictitious. He did not tell us how he got them, but I have a suspicion. It shows that he simply does not understand how those establishments work. I support these Bills and of course reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.16) —I have just heard some very interesting points from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) which ought to be answered before I talk about the amendment. The first point is that the honourable member for Bendigo talked about cost rises and so on. What he really should be looking at are the terms of trade. I do not think he understands that. Of course, the terms of trade relate to the ratio between prices paid and prices received. If he thinks farmers are happy with the change of government, he has obviously been out of the country. We have seen over 100,000 farmers march on several capitals, including Canberra, to vent their frustration at the rising costs, the falling prices and the lack of competitiveness that they are facing right now. If he does not think there is something wrong, I ask him to talk to a few farmers to find out their views. I also assure him that the Opposition policy is quite clear and will be quite clear when we are re-elected to government. He seemed to keep harking back to the fact that the former Government in 1981 adopted the principle-I underline the word principle-of cost recovery. However, by 1982 the former Government recognised that something was violently wrong, namely, that Australia was facing its worst drought this century. Quite naturally, it saw that to impose a new cost on to the industry would be quite unrealistic and unreasonable. Because of the drought and also the world recession, that principle was not carried out. Nothing has changed since then to warrant that principle being invoked. The industry is still in much trouble. In many ways it is still facing a crisis. As I have already mentioned, the marches by the farmers would have told the honourable member loud and clear that there are real problems out there. Another point the honourable member made was when he talked about the Mayfair Hams and Bacon Co. abattoir at Bendigo. All I can say is that if the Export Inspection Service has to inspect 100 per cent of the product when only 10 per cent is being exported, someone in the establishment is very disorganised. I would not think it too hard to re-organise the establishment so that only the 10 per cent of product which is to be exported is inspected by the Export Inspection Service. A point I wish to take up with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) is that I do not think he understands the basis for the sale, or what is sometimes known as the privatisation, of government industries. I am putting this forward so that, if we are to have debate on this, people can understand the facts. Briefly, the points about any sale of government enterprises are, firstly, that if it were to be considered only part of that enterprise would be sold and it would be sold to the employees-- Mr Brumby —What's this got to do with export inspection? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Unfortunately the honourable member for Eden- Monaro made a comment on this. When an honourable member strays from the Bills, other speakers are entitled to reply. This is why we should stick within the narrow confines of the Bills before the House. Mr HAWKER —The important point is that any decision that would be made would involve selling only part of such an enterprise. It would be sold to the employees, not to some foreign corporation, as the honourable member seems to think. The second point is that, if any decision were made, written into the contract would be safeguards for country consumers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member for Wannon commenting on these Bills in reply to a speech made in last night's adjournment debate or a speech made today? Mr HAWKER —I am commenting on some points made earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Eden-Moraro. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not remember the points the honourable member is bringing up. Will he comment briefly and then get on to the Bill? Mr HAWKER —I will finish those points. It would happen only if a more cost efficient service were provided for consumers. Unless those points were met, obviously such a decision would not be taken. In seconding the amendment put forward by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt), I think it is disappointing that the Government has moved to put these Bills before the House without proper consultation with the industry. Export industries are very conscious of the problems they are facing now. For the Government to come along in a heavy handed manner and say `You are going to have these changes whether you like it or not and we are not going to discuss them with you' shows a real lack of regard for the opinions of the people who will be directly affected by these changes. We welcome the attempts by the Government to reduce the cost of export inspection services, but frankly, we feel that they do not go far enough. They do not really address the inefficiency in various sections of the Export Inspection Service, in particular, the massive costs of the meat inspection service, which, as has been said already by previous speakers, is by far and away the biggest service provided by the Department of Primary Industry. It is interesting to look at the cost of the export inspection services. Going back to 1979-80, 8.8 million cattle and 30 million sheep were slaughtered and the export inspection services cost $31m. In 1983-84 the number of cattle slaughtered was seven million, which was a fall of 20 per cent, and the number of sheep slaughtered fell by 21 per cent, yet the cost of the export inspection services rose by 150 per cent. I know that the New South Wales Government had handed over the State service, but even so the cost increases are out of this world. It is interesting to draw a comparison between the cost of the meat inspection service in Victoria and the cost of the Federal inspection service. As my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) said in a speech in this House on 8 October last year: . . . the cost of the service in Victoria runs at $8.4m. That is the State meat inspection service. He continued: The service inspects something like 85 to 90 per cent of the meat processed in that State. Industry sources estimate that it costs about $13m to render the same Federal inspection service which covers about 10 to 15 per cent of the remaining export products. I repeat that it is costing more for the Federal inspection service to do 10 to 15 per cent of the inspections in the Victorian abattoirs than it is for the State service, which is providing 90 per cent. The speech continued: The Country Abattiors and Wholesalers Association of Victoria reports that because of this cost differential the State meat inspectors could inspect and brand the present export kill in the Victorian export works for a cost of $4m. That is $4m compared with $13m for the Federal service. The speech continued: So one can see that on a contractual basis the Victorian inspectors could save the producers and processors $9m. They could also save the Federal Government and the taxpayers of Australia approximately $9m a year. If we look at the Victorian situation in a little more detail, we find that the cost of the Federal service is applied over approximately 8.6 million units. The State service, which is doing the major part, according to the most recent figures, is covering 16.4 million units. Those figures include sheep and cattle, so that they are slightly different from the last group of figures. That is costing about $8.4m. On a per head basis the Federal inspection service costs three times more per unit than the State service. It is interesting to read a letter sent by the Country Abattoirs and Wholesalers Association of Victoria to the former Minister for Agriculture in Victoria, which stated, in part: As both Local and Export Meat Inspectors have the same qualifications it is possible for Victorian State Meat Inspectors to inspect and brand the present export kill in Victorian Export Works for at most $4 million. Going this way, and using Victorian Meat Inspectors on a contract basis to the Federal Government would save the Australian Meat and Livestock Industries of Australia $9 million. When we talk about the efficiency of the service, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has a long way to go before he can come in here and say that we are providing a cost effective or cost efficient service. It is disappointing to the industry when it is facing so many problems to find that no real effort is being made to improve the efficiency. Past debates on the meat inspection service in this place have highlighted some of the incredible inefficiencies of overmanning. About 18 months ago I brought into this House the example of 150 meat inspectors who at the time were on full pay and were doing absolutely no work. It is interesting to note also the cost of the Export Inspection Service. If we look at Appropriation Bill (No. 1) we find that the total cost of the Export Inspection Service for all industries for 1985-86 is projected to be just over $102m. This compares with $88.6m in the 1984-85 figures. That is an increase of over 15 per cent in one year. We are told that this year inflation might be something like 8 per cent or higher. Those figures probably are a bit rubbery, as we heard earlier, but by any standard that is a massive increase in the cost of export inspection services. I challenge the Minister to find ways of making the Service more efficient and reducing that cost, because that really is a massive increase. That highlights the basic problem which the Minister and the whole Government face, namely, that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is directing this Government. In particular, in this situation obviously it is the Meat Inspectors Association which is directing the Government on how to run the service, what the staffing levels should be and how many people should be employed in the industry. The Minister is hamstrung. In some ways I feel rather sorry for him, but it is his decision to be in the Australian Labor Party, which is subject to the whims and fancies of the union movement. When we talk about efficiency, we should look at how the inspection service is implemented and paid for and how it works when it is put into the various abattoirs around Australia. The basic problem which the Minister has not addressed, which he should address, is summed up very well in a paper delivered by Dr Miller, the former Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry, who is now Director of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, when he spoke at the closing session of the National Agricultural Outlook Conference last year. What he said applies specifically to the problem about which we are talking today. He said: The hip pocket nerve is a most effective motivator . . . If a meat boning operator doesn't pay for the services of meat inspectors, he doesn't care how hard his plant is to inspect or how many inspectors are needed. If inspectors are not offered increased pay for improved productivity, they have an incentive to use their industrial muscle to maintain their numbers. If individual abattoirs pay for inspection by an invariable slaughter levy, they have no incentive to plan their layout and operations to reduce inspection costs. Dr Miller highlighted the real problem of the cost of export inspection services, which is the problem the Government ought to be addressing. Unfortunately, because the Government is subject to the views of the unions, this is one area from which the Government will run a mile before it will face up to the problem. It is interesting to look at the particular example of the export inspection services problem at the Mudginberri meat works. I think all honourable members are well aware of the massive increases in productivity that have been attained at Mudginberri meat works by employers and employees getting together to make the productivity of the works rise. In fact, the meat workers at Mudginberri are getting double what their fellow workers in other abattoirs are getting. The killing cost at Mudginberri is way below the cost at Katherine. The figures are something like $38 per beast at Mudginberri while at Katherine, using the union endorsed tally system, the cost is over $140 per beast. It is important to remind the Minister that his agreement at Mudginberri was ratified by the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, yet he would not support the meat works when an illegal picket line was put there to stop the Federal meat inspectors going into the works. The picket line was illegal yet the Minister, who is responsible for providing the Federal Export Inspection Service, was quite gutless, I think, in not ordering those inspectors into the works. He had a very simple option: If they were not prepared to work he should have taken steps to have them dismissed. He comes in here and says: `What are we supposed to do with these inspectors? We cannot just sack them'. I suggest that the Minister look at the number of station hands on various properties around Australia who have lost their jobs because of the lack of profitability in primary industry at the moment and not try to adopt a double standard quite so often. As I have already said, he is facing the problem of the unions dictating to the Government what it should be doing, and the Meat Inspectors Association is no exception. Another interesting thing to note about Mudginberri is that all the staff who work there live on site, and there is no doubt that there would be absolutely no problem in the inspectors living on site. If that were the case, the picket linewould be irrelevant because no-one would be crossing it. The meat workers certainly do not have to cross it every day and the meat inspectors would not have to cross it either. So I suggest to the Minister that the so-called problem of meat inspectors refusing to cross the picket line is rubbish. Because the union told the inspectors what to do, the Government refused to act. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party said, we are grateful for small mercies and the few improvements in export inspection services but we feel that there has been inadequate consultation. It is an accusation that is being made about this Minister more frequently. He is listening less and less to the industry and I think that it will become more evident in the type of legislation that he is bringing into this House that he has no real feelings for what the industry reasonably expects. The other point to remember about the Export Inspection Service is that it is nothing more or less than a tax on exports. We have heard in this chamber many times in recent days of the problems we have with the balance of trade. We have enormous balance of trade problems and the only way we can improve that situation is by increasing exports. Obviously if we are trying to increase exports the last thing we want to do is put a tax on them. Yet this Government has done that very thing, and it has done very little in other ways to help the problem. Something was said earlier in the debate about the devaluation. Obviously that has helped export industries, but the fact remains that devaluation is something that a country really hopes to avoid because devaluation is nothing more or less than the rest of world saying: `You are not worth what you used to be; we are going to cut the capital base of your country'. If any business were faced with that sort of rundown of its assets it would be going broke very quickly. My final point is that when the coalition is returned to government it will be looking very closely at the Export Inspection Service. In particular we will be looking very closely at contracting out part of the service. We have seen, from the figures that I have already mentioned, the massive inefficiency and increase in costs of the Service. There is no doubt that there is something violently wrong with its level of efficiency. Unfortunately the Minister has shown that he is not prepared to address this problem but I assure him that when we get back into government we will address it for the benefit of all exporters and primary producers. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.35) —It would seem that the Opposition does not learn anything if one takes into account many of the arguments used, particularly by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). I do not accuse him of making these statements with malice, but he is wrong in most of what he said. I think the only way I can satisfactorily try to convince him is either to arrange a briefing for his Party or to send him very comprehensive correspondence. There is no way that I can be accused of not looking closely at the whole question of the Export Inspection Service because, quite frankly, I inherited the situation following the royal commission into the Australian Meat Industry. The previous Government set up the Export Inspection Service as a result of the problems that Government then had. The work done by the Export Inspection Service and by the Department of Primary Industry since that time has been outstanding and I will defend the work being done by that Department, and the Export Inspection Service, in here, outside or anywhere. We can now stand proudly in the world and guarantee the integrity of our product. We do meet the requirements of our customers in situations where we have to negotiate with very many parties. Regarding the nonsense about there not being enough consultation, the previous spokesman for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), once said that there had been no consultation about a dairy inspection matter. I actually checked it out and to my surprise-I did not expect to get this figure-there had actually been 155 consultations with the dairy industry and various parties concerned with this very minor piece of legislation concerning inspection. It is absolute nonsense to say that there has been no consultation. We have formally established consultative bodies. I mention the Inspection Policy Council, which has industry representatives on it, the Efficiency Initiatives Consultative Group, which basically comprises the unions involved in this industry; the Meat Industry Advisory Council, comprising the processors and employers; the Fish Inspection Advisory Committee; the Veterinary Public Health Committee, which concerns the States; and individual industry groups chaired by my Department or by me. To say that there is no consultation is absolute nonsense. I would have thought that the Opposition would have at least given credit where credit is due. The Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill, which we are discussing cognately with two other export inspection Bills, is very important. It gives us flexibility, it gives us choice and it gives us agreement from the industry before anything happens. In other words, the opportunity is there for flexibility and choice such as the industry has never had before, and it totally agrees philosophically with the fee for service concept to which we are moving. This year we have contained costs. An amount of $10.8m has been absorbed and this gives us, on the best estimates we can make, a potential for $18m in savings. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already commented on that matter and I will speak further on it in a moment. We are making progress in attaining what was once a dream-a national inspection service. It is starting to come to fruition. Negotiations to facilitate the transfer to the Commonwealth of certain inspection functions in Tasmania are almost finalised. In the case of Victoria and the Northern Territory negotiations are well advanced and a date of effect of 1 January 1986, probably earlier in the case of the Northern Territory, is expected. We have strong indications that Western Australia also wishes to revise inspection arrangements involving the Commonwealth resulting in the abolition of the duplicate State charge. This has already been effected in Queensland. Meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council and other meetings I have had with State Ministers have shown that the States too have understood the magnificent progress we are making towards getting a national inspection service and addressing this fundamental question of costs in the industry. We are making enormous progress. Mr Hawker —At double the cost. Mr KERIN —That is absolute nonense. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) came in here in his usual lethal way throwing around charges and facts like confetti. He said that he did not want lessons in history. This is not so much a lesson in history as a lesson in fact. In 1979 the previous Government decided to recover half the cost of export inspection. It had a timetable for this which was set out-July 1979 for meat, wool and grain, July 1981 for fish and dried fruit and January 1983 for edible oils, eggs and dairy products. This has all been reinforced by statements made by the razor gang-the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Functions-on which the then Primary Industry Minister, Mr Nixon, was one of the prime personalities. That policy was reinforced by that committee. The previous Government arrived at a 50 per cent figure for recovery of the cost of export inspection for grains, wool and dried fruits by the time we took government-that is, in the January before the March 1983 election. The previous Government was clearly on that path. It is not so much due to the previous Government's incompetence that it did not arrive at the 50 per cent, but the long harrowing process of discussion, negotiation and consultation which it had entered into. Those steps were already under way when we came to power. I did not transform the Department of Primary Industry into a maelstrom in order to get the 50 per cent charge; basically, it was already proceeding down that path. The object of the previous Government was very clearly to recover 50 per cent. It is true it did not raise the charging rates frequently, nor did it vary the volume of exports. This Government re-endorsed the previous Government's policy. The honourable member for Wannon said a few moments ago that there was a drought and that was why the previous Government did not move in that way. Why then did it move on grains and wool, two of the principal industries. Certainly it did not move on meat, but that was mainly because the costing exercise and the consultations had not progressed far enough. There was no other reason. It is really a nonsense to say that all this is due to us. The other charge is that the decline in terms of trade is a reason for keeping inspection charges down. The Government's policy is to recover half the cost of inspection and it is also policy to keep the inspection charges as low as possible. We have cut out 20 per cent of what was then the 50 per cent inspection charge by removing some cost items out of the charging mechanism itself. At present an assistance measure of about $55m is provided by this Government to primary industries for whom we provide a ser- vice. Further assistance is considered on an industry by industry basis. For example, there has been money in this Budget going directly to the meat and fishing industries, two of the industries concerned with charges being applied to them. The honourable member for Gwydir wanted to know the basis for the $18m savings mentioned in my second reading speech on the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Bill 1985. This cost reduction is based upon charges to the inspection system which were agreed to by the industry. I say again that the industry accepts the fee for service approach. Any further savings from this legislation will be in addition to the $18m and will arise from more efficient use of inspection time by the industry itself. The charge has been made also that inspection costs have nearly doubled since 1982-83. That is not correct. Costs for 1985-86 include domestic inspection taken over from the States and Territories. In real terms export inspection costs have been reduced. I turn to the concept of the fee for service. The Meat Industry Advisory Committee, one of the committees which has a permanent consultative arrangement, is meeting again next Tuesday. I can give a commitment to the House that the new methods of charging will not be introduced until there has been full consultation and until the industry as a whole wants them. However, the industry as a whole has agreed to the philosophy of a fee for service; in fact, it has been pushing for it. The reports we have had reinforce this. This Coopers and Lybrand report, which put up a range of options, put this forward and it has been discussed, as have all the other analyses and papers which have been put forward by the Department. I heard some quotations from the honourable member for Gwydir of comments made by the outgoing Chairman of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council. This Council supported the new inspection proposals and the move towards self-regulation. The comments referred mainly to product description including particularly a new acronym OTD(E) which, I understand, stands for overseas trade descriptions (exports), and the fact that the industry itself should be responsible in this area. It is product description, more the commercials end and not the export inspection part of it. My Department and the Government have supported this in principle but have pointed out that there needs to be caution in order to see that interests are protected. Some people in the industry believe that the industry can do nearly everything itself. If I look at the number of allegations before me at any time and the fact that two of the largest groups were fined very heavily recently because of breaches of the regulations which we enforce very rigorously, I do not believe that we have reached the stage yet where any responsible government can move to self-regulation without iron-clad assurances. In other words, we are not opposed to self-regulation to the extent that that can happen and we do not want to involve ourselves in commercial decisions, but we do want to ensure that we do not have problems that result from our trying to do the job on the cheap simply because some people have a philosophical leaning in the direction of self-regulation. The honourable member for O'Connor indicated that the Government should return responsibility for inspection to the industry and that this has not occurred. That is wrong. Major moves have been made to hand back some responsibilities and where this has happened these have been fully supported by the industry. He and other Opposition members who have spoken have lost sight of the fact that overseas countries require full control by a federal government authority which must be independent. There is no sense in putting forward a philosophical position just because it accords with one's rhetoric in this country about the virtues of deregulation. We have to supply a service to an industry with export inspection and that service must be Australia-wide and run by the Commonwealth. There must be a Commonwealth export stamp. Our customers require that and they want such a service to be independent. That is the requirement of our principal customer, the United States Department of Agriculture. One of that Department's most prominent officials, Mr Gast, will be here within two weeks to look at what we are doing. The United States keeps a close scrutiny, not only on our works but on our administration and regulations. It is an absolute requirement to satisfy that market that we proceed in in the way we do. There is no point in saying that we can somehow get away with it, because we simply cannot do that. We cannot give all responsibility to the industry when our customers require that the function be performed centrally and officially by government. The honourable member for O'Connor said that I had not done much about the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. What we are concerned with here is God, money and politics and that is not a very easy matter to sort out to the satisfaction of everyone at all times. This Government, like its predecessor, does not make decisions on the religious requirements of our customers. I am not going to Saudi Arabia to tell them how to run Islam. The customers put requirements upon us and we have developed a consultative mechanism with AFIC so that we can look at the question of fees and practices. We have progressed a lot in that area as well. It is all right for the honourable member for O'Connor to accuse me of not being able to solve all the problems with AFIC; but largely that situation is now in a responsible setting. AFIC speaks freely with us, and we have an agreed path. What is more important, our customers know and understand our Halal procedures and they are totally satisified with them. I opened my speech by referring to the nonsense spoken by the honourable member for Wannon. The comments made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) were spot on. The assertion that the cost of Commonwealth inspectors is higher than that of State inspectors is absolute nonsense. The honourable member for Wannon was saying that there could be a $9m saving if we inspected only at the rate at which the States did, such as in Victoria. It is pretty obvious that the honourable member has been wound up by the Country Meatworks Association in that State and the livestock agents, the saleyard people. I have seen them personally, and my officials have seen them goodness knows how many times. Although one can convince them face to face and convince them with letters, they will still run a political line. The fact of the matter is that the saving with the takeover of the Victorian inspection service will be $2.1m. There will be a saving of $0.9m with respect to the dual fee, and a saving of $1.2m with respect to staffing. There is no difference in the cost of inspection whether a man has `Commonwealth' or has `State' written on his white coat pocket. The requirement of our customers overseas is for export inspection and that it be performed by the Commonwealth, that there be a Commonwealth export stamp upon it. Sure, State inspection costs less, by definition; but if a works has an export accreditation and the owner of the works says that he wants an export inspection service in, the beasts go through. It is his requirement. We have three kinds of industries in this meat industry, and on all occasions the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service is providing a service to them; so they require export inspection. What costs more is the presence of veterinary surgeons. One cannot identify which cut in a beast that goes through the chain is to be exported, so that is why one has export inspection applied to the lot. That is the very basic problem. We also have the allegation of meat workers sitting down. We sometimes have a surfeit of inspectors. We sometimes have a near shortage. With the big kills in the late 1970s, of course, we often nearly ran into shortages. We must have people on tap to meet the requirements of the abattoirs and to provide that service. So one has people in Adelaide, and one suddenly has to put them into Tennant Creek or somewhere like that. Also, one needs people who are trained. We are exploring methods of getting as much flexibility as possible into our staffing arrangements. Once we get a national inspection service we shall have much more flexibility with respect to the managment of those people. There were some final points raised in this very wide-ranging debate that went well past it. However, as regards Mudginberri-and I have never addressed the issues at Mudginberri because the Government has been at pains to try to resolve the dispute rather than to expand it-many lies have been printed in the newspapers about what has happened in the Northern Territory, particularly by the Australian of 10 August and 11 August. There was a statement there that the Katherine works would not open; but the fact of the matter is that broad agreement was reached with Mr Ibbotson in that plant, and availability of cattle was the problem. There was a statement that Tennant Creek was not opened. It actually opened on 8 May on conditions similar to those which apply in Queensland. There was another statement that the AMIEU had forced Northern Territory cattle to be slaughtered interstate. The fact is, of course, that two-thirds of the cattle in that Territory traditionally go outside it. Freight of $90 is paid and they are slaughtered under the tally system. The fact is that the processors reduce their prices to meet those of the contract abbattoirs. There was another statement to the effect that Point Stuart closed due to the actions of the AMIEU. That again was a nonsense. That plant had a debt of $2m 12 months before any AMIEU action. (Extension of time granted) My final point is that both Alice Springs and Souery's abattoirs in the Northern Territory went broke under the contract system. This is a very difficult issue, and what the Government has been saying all along is that we should focus on the tally system itself, because we have virtually three kinds of meat works in this country-those in the isolated areas, those in the country areas that are open two or three days a week, and those which have year round killing and which favour the tally system. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed on 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I remind the House that this Bill has fairly narrow applications, and I ask honourable members to keep their remarks within those applications. I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill. If there is no objection the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.58) —As we shall be debating cognately the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill, the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill, and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill, I shall deal with the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill initially. These Bills relate to methods by which licences are issued and payments received for foreign vessels operating within the 200-mile Australian territorial waters. The Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill, to which I shall return shortly, outlays an initial loan of $5m to the fishery to assist with the process of rationalisation. The Opposition endorses the action taken in each of these Bills, does not seek any amendment to them and will give them speedy passage. The foreign boats Bill simplifies the administrative processes needed to exempt a foreign fishing vessel from levy charges where such a vessel generates significant benefits for Australia. Most foreign vessels operating within Australian waters are subject to a licence levy unless the Minister considers that the foreign operators are providing substantial benefits to Australia. In 1984-85 Australia received some $3m in foreign licence fees. Fifty-two pairs of Taiwanese trawlers and 30 Taiwanese gill netters contributed $1.6m, while another 270 Japanese tuna long-liners paid access fees just short of $1m. Eight Korean squid boats paid $388,000 while 7 Taiwanese gill netters operating under a joint venture were levied $8,000. Recently permission has been given for additional Thai trawlers and gill netters to operate in joint ventures off the Northern Territory. The foreign boats Bill amends the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981 which complements the Fisheries Act 1952. Amendments to clause 4 of the 1981 Act will cut across some of the complexities and delays in settling formal agreements and will simplify processes of levy exemption. Amendments to clauses 5 and 6 of the Act close a legal loophole in the payment of foreign levies. A licence to fish within a specified zone may carry a total access fee which is divided between the agreed number of vessels. At present, if fewer than the agreed number apply for a licence a portion of the access fee would remain unauthorised. The Bill gives necessary statutory authority to collect the full amount of lump sum access payments. The Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill complements these amendments by extending the power to refuse licenses to cover fisheries agreements between Australia and one or more parties which are not foreign governments. The Opposition has discussed these changes with a number of industry leaders, and I hold no objection to what are common-sense changes serving the interests not only of the fisheries but also of the wider Australian community. There is, however, a need for some revision of the purpose to which the $3m foreign levies will be channelled. The levy Act of 1981 followed declaration of the 200-mile zone on 1 November 1979, creating Australian waters almost equal in size to the continent's land mass. Access rights have been granted to foreign vessels in waters under-exploited by Australians or in waters unlikely to be used in the foreseeable future. Levy payments by foreign operators will continue to rise beyond the $3m mark this year, so the Government has become the recipient of a considerable pool of levy funds which are not earmarked for any specific industry purpose, which I think is a great pity. I know it is not consistent with the view of Treasury that funds, levy collections or whatever should be hypothecated for a special purpose. The first time that hypothecation rule was broken was in respect of the Australian bicentennial road program. I well remember the great fight that occurred at the time, because it has been consistent policy of the Treasury not to allow hypothecation of any description. I give the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) some credit for having been able to follow up the bicentennial road program with his land transport program and hypothecating further fuel excise for road construction. Notwithstanding the hard held views of Treasury, I think there is a very strong argument in favour of using funds that are collected from an industry for a specific purpose. The user pays principle is sound provided the user who is paying actually has those funds allocated to a trust fund to be used for that specific purpose. I do not know whether the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) agrees with my view. He may not, but I do think there is some justice in debating and arguing with the Treasury on these issues. I believe the funds should be expended to the benefit of the fishing industry and the Minister should give close consideration to the ways and means of expending this $3m to improve the industry. For example, several major fisheries are undergoing adjustment measures and an additional injection of a grant or low interest or interest-free loans would markedly assist this rationalisation. Commendably, the Government has reinforced a $5m loan to the northern prawn fishery with a $3m grant for adjustment purposes. The expenditure of foreign licence fees could help to accelerate the adjustment process, giving those who wish to leave the industry a chance to do so, and hasten the onset of accelerating the return of profitability to the fisheries. These industries are facing intense cost price pressures. Fuel accounts for up to 40 per cent of the total costs, and prices have risen by 10c a litre or more this year alone. This figure includes the Budget decision to restore the 100 per cent off-road diesel excise rebate. In at least one case northern operators are importing fuel from Singapore rather than paying the exorbitant increases on Australian supplies, and I do not blame them either. The high costs of northern prawn and southern blue fin tuna operators have been further increased in this year's Budget by management fees of about $250,000 in each case. The Government claims justification on the basis of a partial cost recovery of the new management plans, but the goal of those plans is to expand industry profitability, not to exacerbate the cost price squeeze. The impact of these new charges could be offset if the industry were given the benefit of foreign licence revenue. It would be helpful if the Minister asked the Department of Primary Industry and the new National Fishing Industry Council to examine and report on the possible uses of the foreign licence revenue. In such a review the opportunity may be taken to assess current rules applying to the issue of licences for Australian vessels. The Australian motorist needs only one licence to drive in any State; yet the typical fishing vessel must have one Commonwelath and three State licences for the boat, one Commonwealth and three State licences for the ruddy skipper and, with a crew of ten, three licences for each. Really and truly, it is becoming a debacle. Small business today is struggling under all sorts of regulations and licensing. I know that the Premier of New South Wales has given an undertaking to try to reduce the regulations, to reduce licensing. I do not know that progress has been made at all. I spoke to a small businessman the other day who had no fewer than 20 licences to operate a buisness with a turnover of no more than $100,000. Really and truly, I think the time has come to get off the backs of people. Fancy a fishing vessel having to have one Commonwealth and three State licences and one Commonwealth and three State licences for the skipper. What is so marvellous about a skipper? Fancy having to have three licences for each crew member if there are 10 members. How many have they got to have for the cook? It is ridiculous. Some 40 licences are required just to put a vessel to sea. We have really gone licence mad. We are taking licence with common sense by doing this. For a 25-metre vessel in the northern prawn fishery, with a crew of six and an average turnover of two crews a year, the cost will be $4,269 this year in licence fees. It is ridiculous, is it not? I think most of us in this place can see the foolhardiness of it all. It appears the red tape is running out of control. The cost of collecting so may fees could even outweigh the revenue obtained. I am not being party political on this matter because these ruddy licences must have been there when we were in government. It is about time that we started to knock this red tape out of the system altogether because it is binding up the whole system. It is turning Australia into a constipated country.The industry would be receptive to the issuing of far fewer licences. With reduced revenue, the Federal and State governments would still enjoy some net benefit from a reduction in the costs of issuing and maintaining so many licences. All we are doing is keeping stamp lickers and so on in jobs. It is ridiculous. The Northern Prawn Fishery Bill before the House formalises the provision of an initial $5m adjustment loan, a measure which has been sought for more than two years. The industry has proposed this self-adjustment scheme, outlaying compensation to those who wish to terminate their involvement to be repaid with interest to the Government through an annual levy on the remaining operators starting in the 1986 licensing year. The Queensland Fish Management Authority has agreed to act as agent for the loan. The fishery is aiming to rationalise its existing fleet of 250 with an annual catch of 10,000 tonnes to fewer than 200 vessels. The Opposition welcomes this move and gives credit to the Minister for Primary Industry for initiating this action. But it is concerned that a firm promise in the 1984 Budget was not made good in that year. In fact, the general response of northern prawn operators to the Budget provisions this year could be described as muted. The Chairman of the Northern Fishing Companies Association, Mr France, said in part: By making diesel excise fully rebateable for eligible primary producers, including fishermen, the Government has merely righted a `wrong' that it instituted in the 1983 Budget. Mr France said the saving of $2m a year to the northern prawn fishery would go: . . . some way towards redressing the increase of $4.2 million northern prawners had to bear this year as a result of the removal of fuel freight differentials for safe anchorages and increases in diesel price flowing from the Government's world parity pricing policy. He concluded that these decisions have added $15m annually to the fishing industry's annual fuel bill. The industry is to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Opposition trusts that these talks will produce significant reversals of the heavy additional cost burdens the industry has had to bear under this Labor Government. As with other primary industries, the Australian fisheries are asking simply that the Hawke Labor Government get off their backs. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.13) —I feel that the legislation before the House is proof indeed that the Government is getting off the backs of the fishermen. In fact, fishermen are taking initiatives to which this Government is responding. Today, we are discussing the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill and the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill. The Bill relating to the northern prawn fishery provides adjustment in the form of a guaranteed loan of $5m to an industry that has suffered from years of neglect and mismanagement. The problems in the northern prawn fishery are like those in other Australian fisheries. There are too many boats and fewer resources, resulting from the previous Government's inability to manage and protect a multi-million dollar export industry. I am not sure whether the previous Government cared for Australian fisheries or for the men and women who have worked so hard in the industry to develop an increasing Australian involvement in Australian fish resources. It is not as if that Government were not warned. Research bodies and the industry told it. Australia ignored the increasing ability of the industry to take in more fish. It ignored the lower resources available and, on top of that, it actually encouraged unlimited exploitation and ever-increasing boat sizes and capacity. So this Government inherited a crisis in Australia's fishing industry. In stark contrast, it is putting in place management plans for the northern prawn fishery, the Torres Strait fishery, the east coast prawn trawl fishery, the Bass Strait scallop fishery, the southern shark fishery and two other fisheries with which my staff and I have been heavily involved, the southern bluefin tuna fishery and the south east trawl fishery. Fishermen throughout Australia will now be able to plan efficiently how they will invest and concentrate on resources that are available. As a seventeenth century writer said in a book called the Compleat Angler: `Fishing is like maths: it can never be fully learnt'. This industry has now been given the ability to overcome its crisis and to reverse the trend of overcapitalisation and overutilisation of resources. It is not only the fishermen who will benefit, but Australia generally, particularly those who are concerned about the near extinction of some valuable fish species. The industry can now sensibly adjust to biological, economic and market constraints. In Eden-Monaro, where Australia's largest trawl fishery fleet is based, the industry's problems were pronounced. Fishermen not only were receiving dwindling or negative returns on a rapidly dwindling resource but also lacked organisation, sound advice and access to government. In the 2 1/2 years since this government came to office, the industry in Eden-Monaro has been given the chance to adjust rationally to biological, economic and market constraints, and it has organised. It sent a delegation to the Fisheries Outlook Conference and has two representatives on the South Eastern Trawl Management Committee. Nationally, under this Government, the fishing industry has formed for itself the National Fishing Industry Council, which, for the first time, has direct access to the Minister. Because of the formation of this national council, most States have formed their own fishing industry councils, which provide further access to government. The present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), Australia's most popular Minister for Primary Industry, is responsible for this industry access to Government. In fact, he insisted on it, and it is in line with his belief that industry must be involved in rural policy decision-making. With encouragement from the Minister, who, I understand, has been named fisherman of the year, the struggling, disorganised trawl industry in Eden-Monaro and elsewhere now has a strong and viable body-the South Eastern Trawl Owners Association. Since set up in Eden-Monaro under the direction of executive secretary, Laurie Walkear, it has achieved significant benefits for its members. People such as Laurie Walkear, Joe Greco, Jock Petrie and Peter Bell, and many others, throughout Australia, have brought their industry together to present a united voice to Government. The benefits include increased access to Government through members of parliament, through a receptive Minister for Primary Industry and through the Australian Fisheries Service in the Department of Primary Industry. Officers of the Department have given valuable assistance to the association in the past year. One of the most remarkable achievements has been the development of a revolutionary marketing system for the fishing industry. Through the use of Telecom Australia's Viatel system, the association will provide an alternative marketing system which will expand the market for Australian caught fish. It will enable Australian caught fish of improved quality to be supplied to Australian consumers and will thus reduce import requirements. It will ensure fresh fish supply to a decentralised market and will thereby provide the possibility for improved prices for fishermen. The Viatel marketing system will lead to a reduction in the costs of handling and marketing of all fish products and it will be controlled and supervised by the executive committee of the Trawl Owners Association, which has its origins in Eden-Monaro and arose out of the fishing industry's frustration with past fisheries policies and an improved receptiveness on the part of this Government to fishing problems. The Association was given a grant of $110,000 from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account to develop the Viatel marketing system for Australian fish products. This was a recognition by the Government of the need for the industry to expand its marketing possibilities, to decentralise purchasing points to ensure fresher supplies of fish to home consumers and restaurants throughout the country. The Bills before the House provide for a proper statutory authority for collecting the full amount of fees specified in any agreement between the Commonwealth and a foreign interest for access to the Australian fishing zone. the Bills also aim to make the administrative processes simpler, exempting from a levy imposed on foreign boats in the Australian fishing zone, 200 nautical miles to sea, foreign vessels which bring benefits to Australia. They will also extend the Minister's power to refuse licences to foreign boats due to the non-payment of agreed fees to cover fisheries agreements between Australia and one or more non-government foreign interests. The Government has committed itself to protecting the welfare of the Australian fishing industry and the granting of licences to foreign vessels will be considered only in this context. It has also committed itself to constant review of foreign involvement in particular fisheries where Australians express an interest in participating. The Australian Government has an obligation under the Convention on the Law of the Sea to allocate surplus fish resources to foreigners, but it also has a greater obligation to the Australian fishing industry. I am pleased that the Government is going to find out who has what boat where and is going to know not roughly, as in the past, but exactly what foreign boats are doing in our waters. This Government will make sure that action is taken to control the level of exploitation so as not to prejudice the future entry of Australians into fisheries in which they presently do not participate. There are about 9,000 commercial fishing vessels in Australia with a capital investment of approximately $500m and about 160 registered land-based processing plants, of which 70 per cent are located in rural areas. The benefit to local and national economies is enormous in terms of revenue and job creation. It is estimated that the fishing industry gives employment to some 18,000 fishermen with a further 5,000 jobs in processing and wholesaling. The industry also returns almost $500m to the country in exports. Its importance to Australia in terms of both local and export benefits is substantial. The Government has shown that it is well aware of this importance and of the need for rectifying years of neglect and has, accordingly, undertaken significant and long overdue reforms in the fishing industry. I thank the Minister on behalf of an electorate with a comparatively high fishing component and I commend the Bills to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(11.24) —I rise to support the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill, the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill, which were very ably debated by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), earlier this morning. However, I will make a few brief references to the background which led to the legislation we are now considering. Firstly, I remind the House of and draw the attention of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) to the very extensive work done by the previous Government to put in place the legislation we are now amending. It negotiated the international fishing agreements which have made possible the steps that are now being taken further to refine, reform and improve arrangements for our fishing industry. I can recall very clearly many debates in this House concerning the problems facing the fishing industry. A decade back the situation was really chaotic. The previous Government, particularly the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, did a singularly important service for the fishing industry and the individual fishermen in this country in bringing together the participants in fishing around the Australian coastline. I refer in particular to the negotiations with the Japanese and the difficulties that were encountered in those days. One has only to have a sparse knowledge of the industry to understand its complexities. I represent an area which has a very substantial fishing industry and which is, in part, involved in the northern fishing area as well as the fishing area immediately off the east coast of Australia. It was the practice for those within the industry to travel north to participate in the fishing and prawning season. They did so because of the overall economic necessity of achieving an effective catch which would give them some viability in through-put and some return on their investments in boats, equipment and labour to operate the vessels. Over the last decade, and perhaps the decade before, the endeavour to succeed has been a challenge and a mission in life to men of the sea involved in fishing. I can recall the problems in my very early days as a parliamentarian with the establishment of an efficient fishing industry. There were no proper on-shore facilities; there were poor boats; there was a sparsity of effective equipment and there was a very difficult situation for effective marketing. The co-operatives established in New South Wales contributed very largely to the ultimate creation of a viable industry. This was followed by effective work in Queensland and right around the northern areas which finally became part of a really Australia-wide link in fishing. The southern areas and across to the west had a different situation. Tasmania also had a different situation. Today we are dealing with the east coast and the north of this continent, in terms of the legislation before us. I particularly emphasise that the legislation before the House is part of an ongoing and important part of the progress to bring about efficiency and to aid the viability of those who participate in fishing. I applaud the Government for belatedly-the announcement was made in the 1984 Budget-providing $5m by way of loan, with a subsequent decision to provide a $3m grant, to assist in what can be, I suppose, properly described as the reconstruction of the fishing industry. On this occasion I believe the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has taken an effective approach. It is certainly in contrast to the approach that we experienced a few weeks ago with the dairy industry and in contrast to his approach currently with the sugar industry. Assistance is being given, and in a meaningful way. It is to be applauded. The success of assisting the industry in the next year or two will depend on the ingenuity of both those within the industry and those who administer the departmental aspects of this legislation. I am particularly concerned that the Federal Government will use State governments as agencies to administer the legislation and implement the amendments. I want to refer, in a very simple way, to the experience of a fisherman in my electorate. This fisherman operated a trawler on the Richmond River and had a three-mile limit on his fishing rights because he was registered only under State regulations. Having improved his boat and having found that he needed to do more to make his business viable, he applied for a Federal licence. He had to do so through the New South Wales State Department. He sent off his correspondence and the cheque required as the application fee. He had no reply. He then visited the Department to try to ascertain what was happening in the matter. He was told that his application had not been received. It was then too late. There was no way his application could be considered because the deadline had passed. He had a very uncomfortable few days before contacting me, as the Federal member, and my State colleague to seek some assistance. We then discovered that his application was in existence. We discovered that his cheque had been negotiated by the Department. He was told that he would have to fill in another form and that the matter would then be considered. At this point I am not able to ascertain the real outcome of the matter. I mention the experience simply because it is not good enough for State agencies to be used if they are not going to be efficient and effective in the administration of Federal law and decisions in matters so important to the individual fisherman. I appeal to the Minister for Primary Industry to have a good look at the aspect of administration that will be required to implement the legislation with which we are now dealing. Certainly, assistance is being given to fishermen who will operate in northern waters by way of the $3m grant. As the Minister has indicated to the House, the grant is, in part, to compensate them for the high cost of fuel due to increased excise charges. This is fine. We have the Budget decision that there will be some reduction in the price of fuel for off-road use. Again, fishermen will benefit from that decision. However, I hope that the committee of inquiry, which was appointed not so long ago and about which there has been a deathly silence in the last couple of months, will soon respond to its responsibilities as indicated by the Minister and that we will have some precise advice as to what is really to be the outcome of the matter of the crippling cost of fuel for the fishing industry. We now have assistance for those in northern areas by way of a $3m subvention. We have some concessions in the Budget which are to apply from a later date. The whole thing needs to be tied together to create some reasoned relationship between costs in the various locations in which the fishing industry has to operate around the Australian coastline, a coastline which, I suppose, compared with most countries, is one of the most difficult because there are limited onshore facilities. Trawlers have to travel long distances to reach ports where they can operate and processing locations which, in may instances, are a very great distance from the fishing grounds. So fuel costs have become the greatest burden for this industry. If we are to see an effective result from this legislation there has to be a practical approach to how assistance will be directed to individual fishermen. This industry is important to very many of the coastal areas of Australia which have no other potential. We cannot replace it with some alternative. There is a demand for jobs and for the continuation of existing businesses to retain viability at many of the locations of processing plants. This demand needs to be met. The co-operation of this Government is needed to ensure that in the difficult period that still lies ahead for the industry there will be complete recognition of the importance of the individual fisherman and his contribution to this industry and to Australia. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(12.37) —I rise to support the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill and the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill. The Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill, which amends the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981, imposes a levy on the granting of licences to foreign fishing boats not exempt under the Act. The Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill is parallel legislation. With these Bills we are debating cognately the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill. The first two Bills are very much machinery Bills which seek only to close off the loophole that exists in the present legislation. There is not very much one can say about them except that I am very pleased to see that no objections to them have been raised by the other side. The Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill is an interesting initiative. It shows the willingness of this Government to support people in the industry, to consult with them and to act upon what essentially are their aspirations. I certainly commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the Bill. In my opinion and, I must say, in the opinion of a great many people in my electorate, the Minister is probably the best Minister for Primary Industry this country has ever had. That is being said by people within my electorate who I know will never vote for us but who at least concede that point. The Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill enables the industry to consolidate itself, to rationalise its operations and to bring stability into this area. I am not sure just how much stability we can have in the long run. Obviously, the prawn market is very much affected by the whims of the Japanese. I am not one of those who is attracted to the view that all that one sees that is Japanese is essentially good. I believe that the Japanese take a very predatory view in regard to the pricing of this product. Until this marketing aspect can be resolved we will have ongoing troubles with the industry. However, this Bill goes a long way towards recognising the aspirations of the industry and meeting what it sees as the way forward for it. There is no doubt that fisheries in Australia that are prospering now are those that have a management plan. It could be said that the only prosperous fisheries in Australia are the managed fisheries. This probably flies in the face of the deregulation mania that is sweeping the country. It should be realised that regulations are in themselves neither good nor bad. It is merely the implementation of them that has the effect. I look forward to the day when we can get some management into the basic domestic fisheries, the wet line and trawl fisheries that supply the Australian market, which are plagued with the constant problem of irregular supplies, oversupplies and small markets. Last year imports into this country were in excess of $300m. I believe that there is a great prospect for import replacement in this area. I do not think it can be denied that this Government has created big initiatives in the area of greater funding for the fishing industry. We can find additional markets. I am sure there are products in the sea that, properly merchandised, will find a ready market in our near neighbours. If we can address this problem of marketing very actively we can do a lot to alleviate the trauma the industry is experiencing in relation to unstable demand and fluctuating prices. The solution to our problems not only in this area but also in may other areas will be in the search for and development of better markets, which will require some innovative forms of financing. I am very pleased that this legislation has had such a good reception from the Opposition parties. The National Party of Australia is to be congratulated on being so constructive about this. It has not only recognised but also said that the Minister has done a good job. I thought that the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) was a little churlish when he mentioned the dairy and sugar industries. I think the Kerin plan will be seen in the future as a great step forward for the dairy industry. In respect of sugar we really ought to be looking at the antics of the Premier of Queensland and at the subterfuge and untruths that have been perpetrated in that area. I represent an electorate which can grow sugar very efficiently, far more efficiently than Queensland, and which looks only for the opportunity to do so. The sugar industry is an industry with which I am involved. I spent some time in the industry. If we apply ourselves I believe that we can find additional markets but we need to rationalise a lot of the costs. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) touched on the costs of licensing. He had the good grace to say he suspected that this was a requirement under his Goverment. I assure him that it certainly was. Nevertheless, it is something we can look at. This Government recognises that cost. It is interesting to note, for example, in the area of trade, that we are now in the process of trying to put in place a one-stop shop where people can get all the requirements they need in their pursuit of overseas trade. That is the sort of initiative upon which this Government is embarking. It obviously has the support of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I am very grateful for that because I am sure that we can make considerable progress working together in this area. It is a little difficult to speak at any great length on this legislation. I think it has been very well covered and canvassed by previous speakers. Not a lot has not been said in this area. I am aware, from my own experience, of the cost of fuel to the fishing industry but I suggest that this is most onerous in respect of the domestic fishing industry and, in particular, the wet line industry where it would probably account for more than 60 per cent of the total cost of the operations-a far smaller percentage than that of other industries. Nevertheless, it is a cost that is recognised by this Government and we are taking some steps to remedy the situation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your forbearance to make a point which I think is very important to the fishing industry. The export parity pricing system was not a creation of this Government; it was something we inherited. We opposed it at the time but when we came to government we were simply locked into the revenue which had been raised by this device. The truth of the matter is that it has always been a revenue-raising device. It was merely a subterfuge for the previous Government to say that it had anything to do with conservation. It was a revenue-raising device from the start and we were locked into it. However, we did say that we would move to a system of indexation and we have raised the price of that fuel only by the consumer price index or the Saudi light crude index, whichever was the least. At the time that was applauded by people throughout the primary sector. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask him: Is it a fact that a borrower with a housing loan of $40,000 over, say, a period of 25 years is now paying about $10 a week more in loan repayments than in April 1985 when the Prime Minister renewed his pre-election promise that interest rates would fall in 1985? How does the honourable gentleman propose to explain away to the average Australian home buyer the recklessness of both his pre-election and post-election promises on interest rates? Mr HAWKE —I cannot answer the Leader of the Opposition as to whether his figures for the movement in the impact of interest rates are accurate and I do not think he would expect me to be able to identify the accuracy or otherwise of his figures. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition, in expansion of what I said yesterday, that this Government will stand in this place or anywhere in this country and defend its economic policies as they affect the welfare of all of the people of this country, including the hypothetical home owner to whom he refers. Mr Howard —It is not hypothetical. Mr HAWKE —I used the word `hypothetical' in the sense that he gave the home owner as an example. If he prefers the word `example', I will use that word. I simply say that this Government will look at that example, or any other example in the community, and show that, when one takes into account the impact of the totality of this Government's economic policies, that example or that person is significantly better off now in 1985, as a result of the combination of the economic policies of this Government, when compared with the disastrous situation deliberately inflicted upon people in the period of the Fraser Government, for which economic disaster the present Leader of the Opposition, in his then capacity as Treasurer, was responsible. Mr SNOW —I direct my question to the Minister for Aviation. I refer him to the reports of Trans Australia Airlines' record profit of about $30m in 1984-85. Given the Opposition's policy to dispose of TAA, purportedly to improve its efficiency, do the Opposition's assertions have any substance? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Let me say that changing the ownership of TAA would do nothing to improve its efficiency or the quality of service provided to its users. Really what the Opposition is about is flogging off public enterprises and assets in order to get a one-off contribution to deficit reduction. The Opposition had seven years to look at the operation of public enterprises. It came to the conclusion that the disposal of them was not the course to follow. I mention to the honourable member that in this debate the National Party of Australia remains mute. It would be very interesting to know what is the policy of the National Party towards the disposal of TAA. In fact it was National Party Ministers who, during seven years of government, ensured that that did not happen. As I have said, it would be interesting if somehow we could find out just what is the policy of the National Party on this issue. It is true that Trans Australia Airlines has returned a preliminary profit of some $29.5m. That compares with a profit of $3.8m in 1983-84 in the remnant period of the conservative Government and a loss of $10m in 1982-83. I commend the employees of TAA, the Australian National Airlines Commission and the union leadership, for their performance and for the improved result. It is an indication of what can be achieved when a public enterprise is given proper leadership by government, when it has a sound financial structure and an adequate capital base and when there is clear support for it from government and effort by its employees. We can compare this with the problems we found with TAA when we came to government. The problems resulted directly from continuing attacks on TAA by the then government members. The very people who were responsible for TAA led the attack in destabilising that organisation and then complained about its results. What this Government has done is to give TAA a new commercial charter and a sound capital base and to ensure that there is a greater sales effort. It has shown that public enterprises can perform under the right conditions. To sell off public property for a one-off gain to Federal revenue is not the solution to the problems facing the country. There is no substitute for sound management, wise use of government expenditure and proper management of the economy of this country. Under this Government, there will be no disposal of TAA. It will perform better and it will remain in full public ownership. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Treasurer and I refer to the recent announcement that some banks are now imposing special charges on all housing loans. Does the Treasurer agree that special charges are a device used by banks to get around the home loan interest rate ceiling? Does the use of special charges by the banks to circumvent the ceiling discredit the statements of the Treasurer that the ceiling will not be lifted? Mr KEATING —This is a practice in which some banks are engaging. Of course, banks which wish to pursue pricing practices which irk their customers will suffer the penalty of the market, that is, the custom will be taken to another institution. The fact is that as the year proceeds plenty of other institutions will be willing and able to take their custom. While the Australian banks are very keen to make certain that their market shares are secure, any such practices will be noticed by their customers. Mr Tuckey —Where would their customers go? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has had enough practice for the afternoon. Mr KEATING —On the subject of that practice by some banks, I had a question on this aspect yesterday in the Labor Caucus and I promised the questioner that I would put the matter under review, which I am now prepared to do. But I make a point about housing interest rates generally. The Leader of the Opposition stood up here piously a moment ago and talked about housing interest rates. But he forgot to say that housing interest rates were at the regulated ceiling during his period in office. He also forgot to say that, while he is crying crocodile tears over increases in housing interest rate charges, he is also advocating that the people to whom he referred should lose their salary increases. He advocates that they should not have the benefits of wage indexation-that they ought to take real pay cuts. He also says that we should have a tighter monetary policy to put up interest rates. He also says: `We believe in dry economic policies. We believe in market determined rates. But don't put up housing rates because that is politically inopportune.' The new dry Liberal Party of Australia is quite prepared to wallow in political opportunism on the question of housing interest rates when the Leader of the Opposition has urged that we suspend the ceiling on housing interest rates and tighten monetary policy. In other words, he has been urging me for months to lift the housing ceiling and lift interest rates by tightening monetary policy. Now he comes in here with crocodile tears talking about how much a week it will cost. He advocates another policy. At the same time all other honourable members opposite are in here and saying that there should be cuts in real wages in this country. Who would take any notice of him? Mr MAHER —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that on Friday President Mitterrand will go to France's nuclear testing ground at Mururoa to preside over the first meeting of the newly formed regional committee made up of France's ambassadors and civilian and military representatives in the region, including the French Ambassador to Australia? In view of the imminence of this meeting, will he now reaffirm the Australian Government's opposition to French nuclear testing in the Pacific? Does he consider it important the French Government be left in no doubt of the united Australian opposition to these tests? Mr HAYDEN —It was reported in the media today that French President Mitterrand will go to Mururoa to preside over a meeting of what has been described as the South Pacific Co-ordination Committee this Friday. The exact motive for this visit and for the establishment and functioning of this Committee has not been described to this point. In any case, it seems that the French administration is keen to evidence a tough determination to proceed with nuclear testing in this South Pacific. I can assure honourable members and the French administration that this will be regarded as an extremely provocative act by the countries of the South Pacific which have very strong feelings of resentment and opposition to the continued testing in their region. I can assure the French administration that the opposition frequently expressed by a succession of governments of this country over more than a decade stands firmly insofar as this Government is concerned. I restate today the unequivocal opposition of the Australian Government to continued testing and, in particular, the very firm opposition in the event that reports that there is to be a test of a nuclear weapon device prove correct. I want to state that the French are quite capable of carrying out nuclear testing in their own mainland territory. A recent report of the Office of National Assessments-a technical report-pointed out that on the basis of all the criteria which were considered by that institution, nuclear testing could take place quite safely on the Massif Central of mainland France and in Corsica. The final part of the honourable member's question was whether I could assure the House of the united Australian opposition to such testing. Until last Friday I would have done that confidently. I repeat what I said earlier; that a succession of governments of this country, regardless of their political colour, have firmly, unequivocally and quite toughly expressed opposition to that testing. Until last Friday it had bipartisan support. Last Friday, on a program called Dateline, the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed and this question was put to him in respect of French nuclear testing: `Should they stop testing in our region?' The Leader of the Opposition answered `Well, that is a difficult issue' and did not proceed to give any further elucidation as to his position. He slid and slithered away from the real issue. All that was required was a simple yes. If the Leader of the Opposition cannot give a simple yes, I think that the Australian community is entitled to conclude that he has sunk more than a decade of bipartisan endorsement of Australia's opposition to French nuclear testing in our part of the region. I regard that as a very sad development because where the national interest is concerned on such an important matter, I would have thought that the bipartisan support which has stood the test of time and which has had the overwhelming support of the Australian community was appropriate again. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition was asked, in respect of French nuclear testing: `Should they stop testing in our region?' The best he could muster was: `Well, that is a difficult issue'. The Leader of the Opposition has sold out the Australian interest. It was a craven performance. I implore him to right the record by re-establishing bipartisan support on this important issue and say without any equivocation at all that French nuclear testing should stop in this part of the world. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Treasurer. In light of the Prime Minister's pre-election undertaking and his assurance in April that interest rates will fall this year, what advice has the Treasurer for Bankcard holders in light of the notice given to them that interest rates are to increase from 18 to 21 per cent? Mr KEATING —Again, the whole implication of this question is that there should be government intervention in the setting of interest rates. This has come from the party which is promising us the new dry approach to economic policy; that there should be market determined outcomes and, of course, market determined outcomes in one of the most effective and important market places of all, the market place of money. The Leader of the National Party of Australia, true to form, in his days as a Minister was always out there with a regulatory big stick to slap institutions in place. It took a Labor Government to free up the Australian financial system. The report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial Systems rotted on the shelf and it took the courage and foresight of this Government to make the financial system be again what it once was. As I remember, the interest rate that applied on Bankcard was 1 1/2 per cent a month or 18 per cent a year for the credit extended to its patrons. Some people use credit extensively; others use it for a very short period. I understand that the rate was set in 1974, and it remained at that rate until the ceiling was lifted by this Government. The fact of the matter is that interest rates, high as they are, have not slowed down the real economy. In fact, the real economy now is running so strongly that in the June quarter the real growth is at a rate of about 8 per cent on one measure of the national accounts and as high as 12 per cent on an annualised basis. Hence the market has been prepared to pay interest rates of this kind. They are not paying them, as they were in the Leader of the Opposition's time as Treasurer, to stay alive, to hang on and keep their businesses solvent; they are paying them now by choice, to invest and to spend. That choice has not slowed down economic growth or consumption but of course money is rationed in the market by interest rates. In case all the phoney dries opposite need a lesson in basic economics, I remind them that it is rationed in the market-place by price. If the current Bankcard interest rate slows down the expansion of credit in the personal finance area and in so doing slows the rate of growth in the economy to a level which contains inflation, wages and prices, I will be very happy indeed with that outcome. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, led by Sir Kenneth Lewis, MP. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. I inform the House that also present in the gallery are representatives of the Organisation of Former Congressmen of the United States, led by former Congressman and former Mayor of New York Lindsay. We offer them the same warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —Is the Minister for Health aware that today the Public Accounts Committee tabled its report on fraud and overservicing in the pathology industry? While congratulating the Minister for Health on the transfer of the fraud and overservicing detection function to the Health Insurance Commission, I ask whether the report drew the attention of the Parliament to the concentration of ownership and entrepreneurial activity in the private pathology industry and problems associated with the approved pathology practitioner scheme. Will the Minister for Health inform the House of current and proposed action by his Department in these areas? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the quite excellent report brought down by the PublicAccounts Committee in relation to the pathology industry and I appreciate that once more this Committee has made an effective contribution to the scrutiny of public moneys in this country. I also welcome the Committee's acknowledgement that it is because of the existence of the Medicare system that the most thorough statistical analysis of any particular branch of the medical profession in relation to these matters has been possible. I am also grateful that the Committee acknowledges that the transfer of the fraud and surveillance detection function to the Health Insurance Commission has greatly improved our ability to deal instantly with the issues of fraud and overservicing. As to what the Government is doing in this area, as honourable members will be aware the Layton Medicare Benefits Review Committee was given as its first and major task the examination of the pathology schedules and therefore many of the issues dealt with in the Public Accounts Committee report are being dealt with by that Committee. Also, in co-operation with the State governments, we have sought to pursue the accreditation of pathology laboratories in the various States. Considerable progress has been made in that area and I am sure that this report will provide further stimulus to State and Commonwealth activity in this area. The most important point of all about the report is that it is a very serious indictment of the pathology industry in this country. It refers to elements of corruption within that industry and confirms what this Government has been saying ever since it came to office, and that is the need for much more effective regulation of the diagnostic industries in this country. It was the Opposition, in alliance with many members of the medical profession and led by the honorable member for Mackellar, who fought all the way and refused to accept any efforts to introduce much more effective controls in these areas of diagnostic services. I hope that when all members of this Parliament have read this report and have noted the serious concerns it raises we together, at last, with the medical profession will be able to embark upon a major restructuring of the pathology industry to prevent the exploitation of ordinary citizens by many of the activities identified in the report. Mr CARLTON —Does the Treasurer accept the assessment of many economic commentators that excessive money supply growth resulting from the Government's attempts to hold down interest rates before the last election is now creating significant upward pressure on interest rates? In other words, are we now paying the price for the Government's irresponsible monetary policies in its push to last year's early election. Mr KEATING —This Government has always believed in having an appropriate monetary policy. Not only have we relied upon a decent fiscal policy, an incomes policy which keeps wage restraint and prices in check, but we have also backed that up with a decent, consistent and firm monetary policy. In fact, after the Government's massive deregulation of the Australian financial system, we saw a change in the relationship between the monetary aggregates and activity, much the same as we saw in Britain and the United States. The traditional relationship, between say, M3 and economic activity changed, and it was very hard to decipher the change and to take readings from it. We have not gone through the pretence that many countries have gone through of moving off M3 to M2 then, finding that that does not work, broadening the range and moving to M1, and abandoning that and broadening some other range. We have dismissed that pretence-which I might say has been raised to the level of a performing art in the United States and the United Kingdom-and sought to operate a firm monetary policy at all times, keeping an eye not only on growth in monetary aggregates, bank lending activity and exchange rates but also on the measure and indicator of balance in the market, interest rates. That has always been our view. Well before the end of the 1984-85 deregulation was already having a very large impact upon monetary aggregates. We said quite clearly that we would fully finance the deficit and run a monetary policy which was appropriately firm. We have continued to do that and the interest rate outcomes have been a consequence of that policy. The Opposition also said that we tightened policy in the face of volatility in the exchange market, but the outcomes in financial markets we are seeing today and the attendent interest rates are an indicator of balance in themarket. I presume the implication of the question is that the honourable member for Mackellar now believes that the Government has a firm monetary policy. That is what he seems to be saying, although it is not what his Leader was saying a week or two ago. Honourable members on the other side of the House should get their story straight. I believe that we have a firm monetary policy, and at no time did the Government seek to slacken the monetary policy for interest rate outcomes. We had bond tenders in the election campaign. Mr Howard —You heavied the Governor. Mr KEATING —We did not heavy the Governor. Take an interest and read the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is all in there. The honourable member should have a little read, a little study, and if he can keep a clear eye he will find that it is there. In a story in yesterday's Australian Financial Review there is this quotation from the United States Federal Reserve. It said this: Financial innovation and deregulation have apparently so distorted the relationship between money and economic activity that money is no longer a reliable guide to the economy's course. I would have been pleased to have written that myself. Mr MILDREN —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of a number of reports suggesting that the countries which have led the world in economic and employment growth in recent years have been those with flexible labour markets? Is this correct? Can the Minister inform the House whether policies to deregulate the labour market are likely to be widely accepted in Australia? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of reports of a speech made by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the National Press Club on 28 August this year in relation to the Budget in which he made various statements about labour market deregulation. In particular he said: There is abundant evidence that those countries which have led the world in economic growth and employment creation in recent years have had flexible labour markets. The United States is the prime example. He said that in the context of pointing out that the first priority of an incoming coalition government would be to deregulate labour markets. The fact is that the statement by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition and now Leader of the Opposition is absolutely and utterly untrue. If we look at what has happened to employment growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries recently we find that the country which has led the world in employment growth in the most recent year for which we can obtain statistics, that is the year to March 1985, is this country. We have had growth of employment over that period of 3.3 per cent, which compares with 2.9 per cent in the United States, the prime example of the Leader of the Opposition. Our rate of growth of employment is double the OECD average. In those circumstances, it is obviously clear that the statement by the Leader of the Opposition which was made to the National Press Club a couple of weeks ago is totally untrue. It follows from that that we do not need to deregulate the labour market in this country in order to generate substantial employment growth. We have achieved record growth in employment in this country pursuing policies based on the prices and incomes accord and with the maintenance of a regulated labour market, which we believe to be most appropriate to an overall optimum employment outcome. In relation to the second part of the honourable member's question about community attitudes, I believe that the community at large would not appreciate the application of deregulatory policies to the labour market. The trade union movement is obviously totally opposed to it, but so too are the employers- Mr Howard —We can knock off now; that is it. Mr WILLIS —Not at all. I am saying that both sides of the labour market-the trade unions and the employers-are totally opposed to it. Recently the Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry said in a speech on the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems: Australian employers do not, in our view, wish to take a leap in the dark with some nebulous new form of industrial relations system. The vast majority of employers in Australia support the continuing role of the industrial tribunals in mediating industrial disputes and determining wages and conditions. I have no doubt that any government that attempted to reduce to any significant extent the role of the tribunals would run into immense community opposition. So said the leading spokesman for employers in this country on industrial relations matters. It follows from that that it is absolutely clear that both parties involved in industrial relations matters, the trade unions and the employers, do not want deregulation of the labour market. It would most certainly lead to widespread industrial upheaval, the community at large would not want it and the best thing that can be said about that policy is that the Opposition will never be in a position to implement it. Mr LLOYD —Was the Minister for Aviation involved in or responsible for co-ordinating arrangements for the transport industry mission led by Sir Peter Abeles to the People's Republic of China in June? Did the Minister try to have representatives of all the major Australian transport companies, such as Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, Brambles and Mayne Nickless included in the delegation, along with Ansett-Thomas Nationwide Transport? If so, why were they not included in the mission? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have seen some of the allegations and criticisms made in respect of that delegation. Let me say that they are unfounded. The agreement with the Chinese was that there was to be an official party attached to the prearranged Ansett-TNT delegation with the sole purpose of establishing a mechanism for further official and industry communication and co-operation. It is recognised that that purpose was achieved. This Government will not be deterred in its efforts to build a better trading relationship with China. Transport will share in that and we will not be diverted by some of the criticisms and baseless allegations that have been made in respect of this matter. Mr BILNEY —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted action against South Africa which was announced on 9 September by President Reagan? Has he noted that President Reagan foreshadowed the withdrawal of United States Government export credits to American companies that do not adopt non-discriminatory employment policies in South Africa? Can the Minister inform the House about progress on the Australian Government's proposal for a business code of conduct covering Australian companies operating in South Africa? In particular, will the Government consider a similar attitude in relation to facilities available through the export market development grants scheme, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, the tourism overseas promotion scheme and the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation for Australian companies that fail to adopt non-discriminatory employment practices in South Africa? Mr HAYDEN —In the past 48 hours the United States Administration and the European Commission respectively have announced a range of sanctions against the South African Government. Those sanctions follow sanctions announced earlier by a number of other countries, including Australia. In all cases the motive is similar; that is, not to bring South Africa to its knees, but to bring it to its senses and to make it aware of the obnoxious nature of the apartheid administration in South Africa and the conduct of the Government in that country in respect of black people at the moment. What it proves is that although Australia is among those countries at the leading edge in initiating such action, it nonetheless shares a common concern with most, if not all, the countries of the Western association of nations. The United States has announced a series of sanctions affecting bank loans, computer sales, export licences on nuclear goods and technology, import of military equipment, sale of Kruger rands, positive assistance to black South Africans and, of course, inducements-if one can put it that way-to have American companies adhere to the Sullivan Code of Conduct in respect of their practices in South Africa. The Australian Government has outlined a voluntary code of conduct-and I stress voluntary, because we do not and should not claim to have extra-territorial legislative authority in such matters-for Australian businesses functioning in South Africa. Preliminary discussions have taken place between my Department and on other occasions my department and me, and the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I hope to be able to chair a meeting of all three bodies and Government representatives towards the end of next week and it is my aim to conclude an agreement in respect of the code of conduct. The Australian Government has certainly reviewed those commercial incentives for the external sector which the honourable member mentioned with a view to moving on those incentives in any area appropriate. My belief is that the sense of responsibility of Australian business and its abhorrence, shared generally by all Australians, of what is going on in South Africa, will be such that we will receive co-operation in the introduction of this code. 7u1] I have only two final points to make on this matter. I think it is salutary to recall the words of the President of the USA, President Reagan, in his statement outlining his formal documentation implementing the sanctions announced by the US Administration. He said this: I, Ronald Reagan, President of the USA, find the policies and actions of the Govt of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the US and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. The President of the US found the situation in South Africa so totally unacceptable, so thoroughly abhorrent, that he declared a national emergency, and the critical point that he made in declaring it was that the situation in South Africa constituted an ``unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy and economy of the US''. My final point is simply this. Hitherto there has always been bipartisan support on this matter, dating from the early 1970s. It was implemented by the then Prime Minister, Whitlam. It was upheld with considerable force of character by his successor, Mr Fraser, whose work in southern Africa was humanitarian in its inspiration and positive in its implementation. It was maintained by the previous Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong. I ask a simple question of the current Leader of the Opposition, and it is this: Can we now expect a continuation of that bipartisan support for this sort of policy? Can we expect it in the light of the fact that not just moderately radical governments of the world, such as this one, have implemented sanctions but that conservative administrations, such as that of the US, have expressed their abhorrence in no unambiguous way at all. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to declare, simply and forthrightly, whether we can look forward to the continued bipartisan support of the policy in respect of South Africa which this country has upheld for more than a decade. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the growing public debate about the size of Australia's overseas debt. As a constructive and practical response, will the Government consider eliminating or substantially scaling down present restrictions on foreign investment into Australia, thus facilitating a switch in the future away from borrowing abroad to more equity investment from abroad as a method of financing projects? Mr KEATING —There is no doubt that the pattern of investment has changed over the last decade to one with a high degree of financing as distinct from equity, and no doubt the foreign investment policy has played a part in that. I think it is also fair to say, though, that in the bipartisanship which has existed between the parties in respect of foreign investment policy, the foreign investment policy has made Australian companies very much stronger and has made many world class institutions. The deals that they were shoe-horned into by the foreign investment policy at times when foreign investors were prepared to pay a premium for access to this country have been an important building block in the industrial development of Australia. That said, there is still obviously a place for Australia's foreign investment policy, but in the last couple of years we have sought, particularly in the languid state of the economy as the Government inherited it, to lift investment and, provided that the proposals comply with the national interest provisions and the opportunities test, we have generally agreed to them, with some view to the balance between equity and debt. The Leader of the Opposition makes a point which is, I think, perhaps not generally understood by commentators. The great rise in Australia's external indebtedness is one principally flowing from private sector investment. Commonwealth external debt is more than accommodated by Commonwealth reserves on official account and, whilst it is true that the debts of the Commonwealth and the State sector between them are not covered by Commonwealth reserves, the fact is that much of the State debt of the last five or six years was debt borrowed for productive investment for power stations, coal loaders, rail electrification, basic public infrastructure and so on, with, of course, a high degree of commercial application. The great bulk of the debt has been private, based on well founded projects and well founded investments and a lot of it has been related to the energy phase in the oil import replacement program by Japan, which gave us a window of opportunity into the world coal market. It is true that after the development of those projects, whilst export volumes have been okay from projects, Australian prices have been poor; so the earnings from the debt have not been as fast or as large as we might otherwise have believed, and therefore our external indebtedness position was exacerbated in that respect. Also, because the country was so dreadfully uncompetitive in 1983, when the Government put demand in the economy, when this Government's policies induced demand into the economy, that demand quickly spilled over into imports, and we had a flood of imports which responded to that and which worsened the position of our current account. But in respect of indebtedness, the depreciation brought about by the float of the Australian dollar gives Australia the opportunity to turn our trading account around and to turn around the pattern of our indebtedness. It needs to be understood that the first and perhaps perverse effect of the depreciation of the exchange rate is to revalue the Australian dollar denomination of overseas debt, which in the first place makes the debt position look worse but, in fact, the depreciation goes along its way to then repair the problem. This Government has made the appropriate policy adjustments to keep competitive and to get the inflation rate tracking back to 5 per cent to 5 1/2 per cent as a result of the agreement that we made with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. By the decent fiscal policy that the Government has in place our competitiveness will allow Australia to improve its export performance, to deal with its current account and, hopefully, to improve the competitive position of our industries to repair their indebtedness. Whilst it is always an issue in economic management and one which must be examined, I think that some of the extravagant language imputed to our debt position is unwarranted. This is not a question of sovereign debt of the South American variety. It is mostly private debt, well founded. But, over time, I think that the point made by the Leader of the Opposition is sound and that there will be a change in the pattern of investment in respect of equity as distinct from debt, the opposite of which has been the case through the late 1970s and early 1980s. Ms JAKOBSEN —Will the minister for Trade advise the House of the potential for increased trade between Australia and China, and particularly of his view of the opportunities for Australian business in that market? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Cowan for her question. In the wake of my recent visit to China, I think it is important that I should make a couple of comments. First, I think that we were able to explore further the substantial opportunities that exist for increasing trade between our two countries and, more importantly, deepening and extending the basis of our economic relationship. I should like to say, particularly in relation to a question addressed to my colleague the Minister for Transport, that I was able to follow up on the superb work that was undertaken by the recent transport mission. We all ought to congratulate the leader of the mission for the way in which he was able to put in place arrangements for continuing contact between Australia and China in relation to all transportation matters. The important thing is that, while the Opposition seems to harbour a view that we ought to be trying to encourage the private sector of China. The fact is that life in China is not as the new dry Opposition would perhaps like it to be. We have to recognise that there is very great importance in the government to government relationship. We as a government want to ensure that our private sector is able to relate effectively with the Government and the enterprises of China. In relation to the transport area, already a number of Australian companies are actively involved in very prospective endeavours in relation to the construction of airports, harbours and port facilities in China. I think we all ought to be very grateful to Sir Peter Abeles for the way in which in a very short time he was able to arrange a level of contact-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The attention span of the House at Question Time does not seem to be able to go past three-quarters of an hour. I trust the level of conversation will be lowered so that the Minister can complete his answer. Mr DAWKINS —I would have thought that the Leader of the National Party of Australia, of the Leader of the Country Party as the Leader of the Opposition calls him, would have been particularly keen to encourage the development of trade with China, which is, after all, in the areas of wheat, wool and other commodities. I do not know what the Leader of the National Party thinks the world situation in the trade of agriculture is like. The fact is that we have been able to secure substantial increases in sales to China-indeed only in the last few days an extra 0.8 million tonnes of wheat-and we are looking forward to further increases in sales of wool to China. If the Leader of the National Country Party or the National Party-we can take our pick from now on-thinks about this, he will realise that the important thing is that we will continue to make those sales to China only if we have a diversified, reciprocal and mutually beneficial arrangement in our relationship with China. Mr Sinclair —Does it mean that we have all got to be nice to Peter Abeles? Mr DAWKINS —I could not care less whether the honourable member is nice to Peter Abeles or not. I am prepared to acknowledge that as a result of his mission he was able to establish the highest government to government contact that has ever been achieved by any government in relation to dealings with China. Mr Sinclair —Have you told Peter Morris about this? Mr Tuckey —Why aren't-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has behaved himself for 40 minutes. I suggest he continue. Mr DAWKINS —I can go on for some time if the Opposition likes. When the Vice-Chairman of the State Economic Commission, Mr Xhou Wei Chen, visits Australia later this year, as a guest of the Australian Government, to advance this proposition further and to extend the contacts with private companies in Australia interested in developing transport opportunities, I hope the honourable member might be one of those who meet with him and might indicate his support for this developing relationship. The other point I want to make is that- Mr Tuckey —Boring! Come on, Mr Speaker, cut him off. Mr DAWKINS —One of the Western Australia members said that this is boring. I remind him that next Sunday the Vice-Minister for Metallurgical Industry, Mr Lin Hua, will be in Perth. I am not sure that the honourable member for O'Connor will be invited to meet him, but never mind. He will be continuing the-- Mr Tuckey —I like to keep out of the company of tax dodgers if you are going to be there. Mr DAWKINS —He probably would not want to be-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister not to provoke the honourable member for O'Connor. He is really very sensitive! I call the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —He would probably find it difficult relating to someone as brain-damaged as the honourable member. Government members-Oh! Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr DAWKINS —Oh, he is going to bring out his leaving certificate. Where is your leaving certificate? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I admit to lacking the brain skills for beating the Commissioner of Taxation, but otherwise I want that withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will sit down. Mr Tuckey —You are a tax fraud. You are a tax cheat. Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr DAWKINS —The only people the honourable member beats are innocent Aborigines. Mr SPEAKER —I named the honourable member for O'Connor for defying the Chair. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for O'Connor be suspended from the service of the House. A division having been called and the bells having been rung- Mr Ian Robinson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A motion has been moved to suspend an honourable member from the service of the House before the Speaker has even taken the action of naming the member. Mr SPEAKER —I named the honourable member. Mr Ian Robinson —If you did, it wasn't heard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I named him. If the honourable member for Page had been listening he would have heard that I named the honourable member. In fact there was so much-- Mr Howard —None of us heard it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I cannot help it if honourable members make so much noise that they do not listen to the Chair. That is disgraceful behaviour. The Minister was reminded of the naming. The Minister then moved the motion. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— 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.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Bowen, Lionel White, P. R. D.Staples, P. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Humphreys, B. C. Jull, D. J.Baldwin, P. J. Burr, M. A. Question so resolved in the Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for O'Connor thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is another step that I have to take. The Minister for Trade made an offensive remark with regard to the honourable member for O'Connor. The honourable member for O'Connor was called to raise that matter; instead, he decided to behave otherwise. I request the Minister for Trade to withdraw the offensive remark. Mr Dawkins —Not only will I withdraw but also I will resist the temptation to respond to the other scurrilous comments. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present the eighth report published by the Council entitled `Implications of Constitutional Recognition for Australian Local Government'. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the second report submitted by Australia in accordance with the Economic and Social Council Resolution 1988 (LX) concerning rights covered by articles 6 to 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Ordinance and Regulations 1936, I present the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present statements of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for April, May, June and July 1985. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the following paper: `Advance to the Minister for Finance 1984-85-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901'. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document entitled `Portfolio Program Statements 1985-86', together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the document. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance about the appointment of the independent auditor for the Auditor-General's offices. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 18 of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984, I present the eagerly awaited Advance Australia Foundation annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present copies of an agreement with New South Wales for the provision of financial assistance for the Chichester Water Treatment Plant. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Safeguards Office annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 14 of the River Murray Waters Act 1983, I present the River Murray Commission annual report for 1984. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 114N of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the Institute of Family Studies annual report for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, I present the annual report for 1983-84 on the operations of the Act. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the study of returned servicewomen of the Second World War. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report on the review of the repatriation hospital system. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. During Question Time, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) referred to an interview that I had done on the Dateline program regarding a number of matters, including the question of French nuclear testing. I want to make it quite clear to the House, as I did to the one and only journalist who made inquiry of me after that interview, that I and the present Opposition will stick very firmly to the position of previous coalition governments in opposing French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Mr Hayden —Why didn't you say that? Why didn't you simply say yes? That is all you had to say. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I seek the co-operation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The matter of personal explanations is a very restricted one. Mr HOWARD —I agree that the answer that I gave was open to the misinterpretation that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has placed on it. He is perfectly entitled, as he has done, to take political advantage of it. I only make the further observation that if he is genuinely interested in developing a bipartisan approach on these sensitive national issues he might inquire, as others have done, about that ambiguity before launching into such a tirade. Mr Hayden —It is quite contrary. Mr HOWARD —It is not contrary at all. I make it perfectly clear, as I did at the commencement of this explanation, that there is no intention on the part of the present coalition in any way to depart from the opposition of previous coalition governments. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 humbly 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 Blunt,Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cross,Mr Hayden and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney and Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs Leading up to 1989 which will include: A. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. B. Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; C. Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth 2. Implement Action Programs Leading up to 1989 which will include: a. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reducing our military expenditure by at least 10% and allocating this to fund environmental repair programs; b. Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; c. Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs Leading up to 1989 which will include: a. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs; b. Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; c. Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Ian 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 showeth: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the Industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation and Hospitality Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford and Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Rocher and Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament asembled. 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, brought to its attention prior to the Assets Test's introduction on 21st March 1985, this legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of 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 Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Tests. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembed, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans, and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on tax increase, perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, and your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. 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, 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 buinesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries- when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; 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 Cadman. 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 all steps be taken to prevent the continuous erosion of the rights of the holders of freehold land. Your petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament the denigration of freehold rights as practised in N.S.W. and calls on the Parliament to enact overriding legislation to allow full and proper compensation to all Australians where Government requires the use of private property and traditional rights attached thereto. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees, employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Right Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Repesentatives in Parliament assembled should continue the present tax free status of gold. We members of the Yilgarn Prospectors and Leasholders Association and concerned citizens feel that any imposition of a gold tax would have a devastating effect on exploration, mining and employment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. 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 3 cents a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8 cents per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6 cents per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3 cents per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the undersigned shall showeth. The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas-without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: Whereas space technology involves many of the very highest engineering and scientific disciplines that Australia posesses, which may be applied at an international level to reap significant economic and technological return to the nation, and; Since an appropriate space program for Australia must involve presently unco-ordinated industry, government and research agencies, united together with Federal Government funding; Your petitioners therefore pray that you will support the establishment of an Australian Aerospace Agency to manage aerospace programs under a Federal Budget, promote technology transfer, and market our expertise overseas, while ensuring the continued operation of existing space-related facilities within the nation. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the government. To pose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government, in re-structuring the taxation system, upholds as fundamental the principle of an equitable distribution of wealth among the people of our nation, and 1. That the Government does not levy any form of broadly based indirect or consumption taxation, and 2. That the Government does levy gift and death duties, excluding the family home from the latter, and a substantial tax on realised capital gains and wealth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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. This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondana, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June,1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. Manned lighthouses provide a safer service for mariners than automated lighthouses, as well as serving a wide cross-section of other community purposes including: meteorological observations, search and rescue, coast watch, environmental protection and control; 2. Swan Island Lighthouse serves the heavily trafficked and extremely dangerous Banks Strait; 3. Swan Island is listed for registration under the Commonwealth administered Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to ensure that Swan Island Lighthouse continues to be a manned station. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that the decision to place an Army Artillery Base in the Orange-Bathurst area would cause undue hardship to the families affected. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Abandon its decision to resume land in the Orange- Bathurst area for military purposes. 2. That no site is chosen which includes prime farming land. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that does not exist: We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bilney,Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall and Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The peition of certain citizens of the Federal Divison of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damaging effects of record high interest rates on home owners, small business and other borrowers. 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- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.20) —Not quite, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you for the accolade. This afternoon the Opposition raises the matter of the damaging effects of record high interest rates on home owners, small business and other borrowers. Let me make it quite clear that our concern with the Government today is not about the question of the deregulation of interest rates, a question regarding which we share a great many of the Government's objectives. It is not about the effects or otherwise of monetary policy on interest rates; it is about the sheer deception employed by this Government of the Australian people before the last election when it claimed, dishonestly, that interest rates would be lowered this year and when it knew jolly well they would not be. That is the argument we have with the Government, a government which maintains the facade of honour, integrity and fair dealing but which has been caught out in the grubbiest of possible manoeuvres. It was very evident today in Question Time, as it was yesterday, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) were very uneasy when asked questions about the highest interest rates in Australia's history. The Prime Minister was asked today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) whether it was a fact that a person with a housing loan of $40,000 at the moment is paying about $10 a week more in loan repayments than he was in April 1985 when the Prime Minister renewed his pre-election promise that interest rates would fall. So as recently as April 1985 the Prime Minister was still repeating his pre-election promise that interest rates would fall. The response of the Prime Minister in the House today to that question was absolutely disgraceful. I repeat his words. He said that he was not concerned with `the hypothetical home owners' mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is not concerned with `hypothetical home owners' borrowing $40,000 on their homes and having to pay an extra $10 a week in interest payments since he made the promise in April that interest rates would be reduced. The Prime Minister had very good cause for unease in his reply. It was a measure of his uneasiness that he made such a nonsensical and insulting response to the home owners of Australia about their very real end of week concerns. The sum of $10 a week dwarfs the money that is being talked about in terms of tax cuts under the accord next year. However, $10 a week in hard cash out of a family's pocket is something that people are really worried about. What was the Government saying before the last election? Let us get the quotations. In an interview with John Laws on radio station 2UE on 5 November 1984, before the election, the Prime Minister said: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down interest rates will come down too. On 20 November 1984 in an address to a business lunch, and talking to another audience, the Prime Minister said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. I remind the House that the present level of interest rates-I mean real interest rates after one subtracts for inflation-is the highest it has been for 50 years. That is the prospect, `brighter' than it has been `for more than a decade'! In order to rub it in, at the same business lunch I have just mentioned, the Prime Minister also said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the last 20 months. We have plowed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. It was not only the Prime Minister who was making remarks such as that. The Treasurer, who is my opposing speaker in this debate, said on 14 March on the PM program, again after the election: 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. Mr Howard —That was on 14 March! Mr CARLTON —That was on 14 March 1985, which is not all that long ago. However, it was certainly repeating the false claim that had been made before the election. What happens when one makes false claims before an election? The Press takes them up in exactly the way one would expect. I have with me a copy of the front page of the Sydney Daily Mirror dated Monday, 5 November, the headline of which reads: `Home Loan Drop on Way'. It is accompanied by a picture of the Treasurer. What does the accompanying article say? Guy Ker of Canberra states: Home buyers are set to receive a New Year bonus with mortgage rates strongly tipped to fall. Treasurer Paul Keating has predicted an across-the-board fall in interest rates flowing on to home repayments. Mr Keating said: `I accept the views of most market commentators that we have further interest rate falls ahead of us.' That is the headline the Government was searching for during the election campaign. That is the headline it got. It repeated its false claim later. More recent headlines and those of today are somewhat different. A headline of the Daily Telegraph dated Wednesday, 21 July reads `Home Loans to Hit 15 per cent', a somewhat different headline. Of course, there is no election on at the moment. Another headline, which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 25 August, reads: `Bankcards to hit 21 per cent'. That is the reality. What the Opposition accuses the Government of is having economic policies which, taken together, have pushed real interest rates to their highest level for 50 years. Mr Ronald Edwards —Would you deregulate housing interest rates? Mr CARLTON —If the honourable member had been present at the beginning of my speech he would have heard me make it quite clear that in this case we are not arguing with the Government's general approach of deregulating interest rates. Nor are we arguing, as the Treasurer has tried to imply in answers to questions, that we do not understand the distinction between monetary policy and the links between monetary policy and interest rates. I make it clear to the honourable member that we are not arguing on those grounds. We are saying quite clearly that before the election there was a deceitful commitment and promise by the Government to bring down interest rates which led to the kind of headlines we saw in the Daily Mirror and on which the Government went to the election. Since then interest rates have gone through the roof. What are the basic effects of this? I have already given the example of the home owner with a $40,000 loan from a savings bank who is an extra $10 a week out of pocket as a result of the rise of the last few months. Let us look at what has happened to other interest rates. What about small businesses? Small business overdrafts dropped to a bottom interest rate of 13.5 per cent in January 1984. The most recent rate, which was quoted by a bank this morning, is 16.25 per cent. So interest rates have gone up from 13 1/2 per cent in January 1984 to 16 1/4 per cent. How does that effect a small business that is borrowing, shall we say, $90,000? On my calculations it would mean an extra interest cost of $2,475 a year-certainly enough to pay somebody a part time salary for work in that business. It would mean an extra bill of $206 a month for that small business. I presume that if the Prime Minister thought we were talking about hypothetical home owners during Question Time he also thinks we are talking about hypothetical small businessmen. How many people out there in the community who are running small businesses would be pleased to hear that their Prime Minister regards their problems as hypothetical, as he regards the problems of the average home owner? What about people borrowing on Bankcard? Bankcard interest rates will go up to 21 per cent over the next month. What is happening with savings bank loans? Not only are people paying an extra $10 a week on their loans, but also they are being asked by savings banks to pay additional special charges on home loans as a device to get around the artificial ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent imposed by the Government. It is quite possible that if one has a home loan of about $40,000 through a savings bank at the moment one is being charged, say, an additional $70 a year by way of special charges. Indeed, the Treasurer admitted in Question Time today that that is a means by which banks are getting around this ceiling. So whichever way people go, whether they go outside the savings banks to other forms of borrowers or whether special packages are devised by the lenders to get around the 13 1/2 per cent, the simple fact of the matter is that the costs of financing home mortgages and the costs of running small businesses have been going up enormously. The critical point we want to make is that the Treasurer made an absolute meal of the so-called $9.6 billion deficit which he said he inherited from the previous Treasurer and which he used in the first election campaign in 1983. Subsequently it was discovered that the particular estimates he was looking at were considered by him to be not worth publishing the following year because they were not soundly enough based. Now he has been sprung on that piece of deception. He claimed that the previous Treasurer was guilty of deception, and he himself was sprung by using this trick a year later when he was not prepared to publish the identical figure on the grounds that it had no validity. These were forward estimates of no particular value and no credibility could be placed on them. This is a question of the credibility of this Government. The very same Treasurer who accused our former Treasurer of misleading the Australian public over what were then phony figures is now shown, with his Prime Minister, to have made statements before the last election, which he knew were dangerous, about interest rates going down. In fact he criticised people on our side of politics well before that for making similar statements. That he did some years ago. He knew when he made those statements that a Treasurer could not possibly do so with any degree of credibility. In this case I suggest that they were made as a matter of sheer deceit during the course of the election campaign. Another piece of evidence supports this. Before the election the Government relaxed its monetary policy, in other words, it allowed more money to flow into the economy thus easing artificially the pressure on interest rates. There was a deliberate attempt by the Government, by manipulating and relaxing monetary policy, to make it appear that the pressures on interest rates which it knew would come after the election were not there. The whole time that the Government was making these claims to the Australian public, getting all the good press and getting people to believe that interest rates would come down, it knew that there was a substantial possibility that interest rates would go up in the new year. In a speech yesterday and in other speeches the Treasurer has tried to create a contrast between the supposedly wonderful economic policies of this Government compared with the record of the previous Government. The present Treasurer had the advantage, on coming into office, of inheriting a wage pause which was brought in under the Fraser Government. He had the advantage of coming in when the world economy was rising as a result of the successful policies of the United States of America Government. He also had the advantage-- Mr Keating —Ha! Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer does not like to hear this. He hates hearing this. He also had the advantage of coming into office when one of the worst droughts that we have had in our history broke. He had advantages on three counts. He had the breaking of the drought, the world economy turning up and also the benefits of the Fraser wage pause. If he cannot do a reasonable economic job on those grounds he is a hopeless Treasurer. The net result of the Treasurer's economic policies and what he has been going on about since he has been in office is to get us the highest interest rates in Australia's history and also to go into a situation where our external debt is rising substantially, where we are not internationally competitive and where our inflation rate is higher than our competitors around the world. Yet he is doing inflationary deals with the trade union movement which will make our overall situation worse. What we are trying to do and quite clearly presenting is an overall contrast between the claims of the Government about its economic policy and the actual reality. We are trying to expose for the fraud that they are the attacks that honourable members opposite have made on us, on the previous Treasurer and on the previous Government. Before the election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: . . . because inflation is coming down and inflationary expectations are down interest rates will come down too. Post-election he said the same thing. He said: We nevertheless believe that given the fundamental strengths of the Australian economy . . . I would expect, a lowering in the level of interest rates. That statement was fraudulent at the time it was made before the election; it was fraudulent at the time it was said in April; and it remains a fraud. I condemn the Government for this deceit of the Australian people. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.35) — I am absolutely devastated. I thought that, with this new dry Liberal Party of Australia, we would get some real philosophy. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) is supposed to be the philosophy whiz kid, the bloke who determines where the Liberal Party is heading. But what do we find? We find just a bit of political opportunism, a whinge about interest rates set in a market in which he supposedly has faith. We would have done better with the Opposition led by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who never pretended to be anything but an opportunist and with the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who handled these matters of public importance in the House and at least had some idea of basic economics. At least then we would have heard something which resembled the facts. The honourable member for Mackellar went on to say that he wanted to attack the Government for what was said at the election campaign. The terms of the matter of public importance are: The damaging effects of record high interest rates on home owners, small business and other borrowers. What damaging effects? The economy is bursting along at an annual rate of about 5 per cent. If we use the American flash number system, for the last quarter we would have had a flash figure of between eight and 12, depending on what measure of growth we use. The honourable member for Mackellar comes into this chamber and tells us that the economy is being damaged by these interest rates. I remind the honourable gentlemen that in the last few years the United States economy did very nicely under high interest rates with a basic strength in the economy. While nobody in his right mind would like interest rates higher than they need to be the fact of the matter is that this economy has grown very nicely as a result of the policies of this Government. What we heard today was not an addressing of the damaging effects of high interest rates. We heard a whinge about what I said at the election campaign and what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is supposed to have said. We cannot help it if everything we say gets beaten up on the front page of the Daily Mirror. There is no point in showing me the front pages of the Daily Mirror. Half the stories are thought up and are on the morning tabloids at 5.30 in the morning before the journalists get out of bed. The honourable member should not raise that matter to give substance to this issue. The fact is that interest rates are set in the market. The former Government, of which the honourable gentleman opposite was a Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer, had the most regulated financial system in the world. It was so constipated by regulation that it was simply incapable of servicing the needs of this economy. We came into government and just about cut down every regulatory stalk. Not one regulatory stalk is standing bar the housing interest rates. That is the only one. We are urged to let that go too. The humbug of the position of those opposite is that they come into this chamber today crying crocodile tears about housing interest rates while urging us in Press statements to take the regulated ceiling off housing interest rates. In the whole market of interest rates in this country we have re-established the banks into a position of primacy in the Australian financial system and have lifted their competitive position against non-bank financial institutions by having rates set in the market using a sophisticated bond tender system on Federal Government securities and by accepting rates at the market yields. What do members of the new dry Liberal Party say? They do not like the rates. They do not like the market outcomes. The Opposition's supposedly dry philosphy of letting the market rule will not accept that we have interest rates in this country in respect of market positions. What absolute humbug for members of the Opposition to talk about housing interest rates when they are urging the Government to lift the interest rate ceiling on housing. For months now the Leader Opposition has been urging that we lift the interest rate ceiling on housing. Then the Opposition trots out the fact that it will cost borrowers x number of dollars. This is the first week of the new dry Opposition. It comes in with the sort of motion which any back bencher in opposition would feel guilty about proposing and then talks about some phoney interest rate calculation on losses per week. The fact is that the Opposition right through has opposed full wage indexation. It has said that it should not exist. It opposed all the wage rises before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Last year the present Leader of the Opposition said there should be no tax cuts and that we should have a lower Budget deficit. Since this Government came to office there have been wage rises of $45 a week and $7.60 in tax cuts. The Opposition is saying that there should have been none of that but that we are terrible because housing interest rates have risen. Yet those interest rates have not risen to the ceilings that occurred during the time of the former Treasurer. But, while saying all that, the Opposition says that the ceiling should not be there anyway. How does the Opposition expect us to have any respect for it when it espouses those views? The honourable member for Mackellar then talked about Bankcard and said that we lifted the ceiling on personal credit card interest. We did lift the ceiling. That was part of a general deregulation that the Government has sought to introduce in this country. It is true that the rate of interest on Bankcard has risen from 18 per cent to 21 per cent. But the fact is that that will have its own rationing effect in the market. If the people who run Bankcard find that they cannot do the business that they used to do, they will lower the rate, and it will find its own equilibrium. But the Opposition is not about finding equilibrium. The Opposition is just about a bit of cheap politics. I understand all about that because I have been listening to Opposition members for 2 1/2 years. But they should not come and parade themselves as paragons of virtue, saying that they know how things should be and have some philosophy that will help and that this Government has its policies wrong. The fact is that they do not have a free market philosophy. They never have had. When they had the opportunity to do anything about it, they did not take it. This Government has taken every opportunity to have a favourable influence on interest rates impacting themselves upon the economy and has reduced the Budget deficit from nearly 5 per cent of gross domestic product in prospect to 2.2 percentage points for this year. We have reduced the public sector borrowing requirement in this financial year by 1 1/2 per cent. The previous Government was easy on the States in Loan Council and we were left governing 25 per cent of State borrowings. We have reduced that amount. But, despite that, we still see bank credit running strongly. Trading bank advances rose 25 per cent in July over the figures for the previous year. What the Opposition is saying is: `Oh no, what we ought to do, where the rate is lower, is to have 35 per cent advances'. But the fact is that rates are set in the market. We are seeing an enormous change in the financial system. The balance sheets of non-bank financial institutions have risen by about only 7 per cent over the last year whereas those of trading banks have risen markedly showing a greater flow of funds back into the trading bank sector as the banks become more competitive. But the Opposition has given no commentary on that. I cannot believe that, with the great expectation that the shadow Treasurer has of painting the philosophy for the future economic policy of a Liberal government, he could come here with a sleazy loose-mouthed proposition about how much it costs a week in interest rates. I honestly do not know what else I can say about this. It is not often that I run out of words but his policies are so crook that I do not know what to say next. I will turn to another point the honourable member for Mackellar made. He lasted for about five or six minutes on interest rates. I have done my best; I have lasted eight minutes. But he then went on to talk about the economy and said: `Those lucky mugs in the Government got the advantage of our wage pause'. Let me tell honourable members about the wage pause. The wage pause was the state of the labour market after the previous Government destroyed it, but it called it a wage pause. There was a pause in wages but it was because there was no labour market left, so they called it the wage pause. The honourable member then said: `You lucky people also had this enormous fillip from the world. World recovery picked up, the drought broke and that is what saved you.' But let me cite the figures, which are official Treasury figures-something that I always have to point out to those opposite-for the contribution of net exports in total GDP for the last three years. For 1983-84 the figure is 0.1 per cent, to which I hope the Opposition is listening. For the second year this lucky Government received a minus 0.4 per cent contribution to total GDP from net exports. This year, with the depreciation, the figure will be 1.25 per cent. In other words, we secured an economic recovery, but does the Opposition know how? It was the hardest way of all, from inside Australia. It was not with any help from anybody else. It was not with any help from the world. Mr Carlton —A certain amount from upstairs. Mr KEATING —The farm sector occupies a very small proportion of GDP and it was in our first year only. It diminished in the second year and this year. The fact is that we have been able to secure an economic recovery and wage restraint through the prices and incomes accord, which the Opposition deplores, and then the opposition says: `You were all lucky because it came off the world recovery'. The Opposition members should go and try to tell the people who are selling in the world how good it is out there and how much demand there is out there to lift the state of the Australian economy, if we are said to be relying on the world. The fact is that we have in place an economic policy which has seen more growth in three years than occurred in the whole period that the previous Government was in office-in fact more growth in three years than under the previous Government's eight years. Mr Reith —You forgot to deny the drought. Mr KEATING —If the honourable member had been listening, I said that the farm sector occupies a very small part of GDP so, even a big change in that small part would not impact very much on GDP. The honourable member should look at the economic outcomes for 1983-84. The fact is that this Government has been able to mount an economic policy and a resurgence of economic growth and employment growth in this country. There are 410,000 people in work who did not have a job when this Government came to office. Unemployment is decreasing. This is in sharp contrast to the policies of many other governments. The Liberal Party and its economic bourbons learn nothing and have forgotten nothing. They still have the same policy. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer asked me a question about flexibility. What he is really saying is that we should have a system in which real wages decline so that company profits can continue to rise. That is the basis of the Opposition's wages philosophy. It will not work; it never worked and it never will work. This Government has put together two more years of wage restraint, flexibility in the labour market, decelerating inflation and strong economic growth. But the Opposition is saying: `That's not good enough. What we want is some sort of theoretical policy which tries to get where you are now!' The previous Government tried its policy and it did not work. But it is back here telling us that ours is no good. The best that the Opposition can do is to say that it does not like the price of housing interest rates but that the ceiling should be lifted and that it does not like the market determined rate for Bankcard and other market determined rates but that it supposedly believes in the free market. But when the Opposition was in government it never deregulated any markets; it let them stay still for 30 years until they were almost entirely constipated. It let the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System rot. Yet it says to us that we have restored Australia's competitiveness by bringing down costs and floating the exchange rate to see a depreciation of the dollar. Mr Hawker —And borrowing money. Mr KEATING —The borrowing is no doubt a reference to the $9.6 billion bequeathed to us by the honourable member and his party, which we have now reduced to $5 billion or more than half in GDP. The fact is that it is game, set and match in economic policy in this country. In a personal sense, I wish Mr Carlton the best; I do not want to cruel it for him. But the fact is that he left Ash Street in a ruin and that is how he would leave the Australian economy if he got his hands on it. Of course, this Government would like interest rates to be as low as possible but, in a market determined system with very strong growth, the price of money will obviously rise with the demand. If growth subsides or if growth is kept in check, presumably, all things being equal, the price of money will subside also. For the Government's part, it must do what it can to create the conditions where interest rates will fall. It is reducing the public sector deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement. We are competitive and we will have more growth in the economy. That will further diminish the state of public indebtedness. In that situation the private sector will continue to invest strongly and consumption will run nicely as a result of a tax cut last year. The fact of the matter is that interest rates finally are mastered. We reject absolutely the central tenets of the Opposition's proposition. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.51) —We have just heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talk about game, set and match but if he listened to the electorate, particularly the home owners, small businessmen and borrowers, he would certainly realise that there is no love out there for his policies because of the manner in which interest rates are severely affecting each of the people about whom we are talking. It has become the lot of the Australian Labor Party in government to have risen to the lofty halls of fame and then to have turned away immediately from the people whom it is supposed to be representating. I suggest that, if the Treasurer went home and listened to the people in his electorate, he would find that possibly the thing most talked about at the moment, the problem most people are facing, is high interest rates. If we look at the record, we see that we are talking not just about high interest rates but about the highest real rates of interest since the Depression in 1933. This is the basic problem as we see it. We also heard the Treasurer bandy around such phrases as being devastated and being at a loss for words about the flash figures of the United States. I suggest to the Treasurer that, if he came down to earth and started talking in terms that the electorate can understand, he might get the answers he seeks to the problems facing the Australian economy. The Treasurer made some statements which I believe were not accurate when he talked about an entirely deregulated market. As far as I can see, that is not the situation. If the Treasurer wants to set a difference between interest rates for borrowings under $100,000 and over $100,000 obviously deregulation is still in the market place. He talked about trading bank advances being 25 per cent up on last year's figure. I suggest that if the productivity of the Australian economy is being determined by the earnings of the major banks in Australia, that figure is accurate. As I understand it, major profits have been made in the trading sections of the banks of Australia. I understand that the Primary Industry Bank of Australia has returned a record profit, not because it is lending to borrowers but because it is reinvesting. The people to whom PIBA is supposed to be lending cannot afford to borrow at the current rates and the bank is reinvesting at a profit. If the Treasurer's view of the economy is based on the rewards to big business and big financial institutions, I suggest that he look further and beyond for a just comparison. The Treasurer admitted that the people most hurt are those in the rural sector as far as their return on capital is concerned in financing large loans at high interest rates. No doubt their performance, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is slipping because Labor's policies are making it slip. There is no denying that the Government's deliberate monetary policy at this stage is to keep up interest rates to shore up the plummeting dollar. We can see the result of the dollar going on to the open market by looking at graphs published recently which show that in January 1985 the dollar was up to United States 80 cents, by April it had shrunk to United States 63 cents, and now it is hovering just over United States 65 cents. That is basically what is determining the Government's monetary policy. We have seen a 5 per cent devaluation of the dollar just in the last week. No doubt this has come about because of the details of the accord and the productivity claim that have been exposed. This will put another nail in the coffin of productivity and the small borrowers about whom we are worried. As has often been said, the plummeting Australian dollar shows the contempt of every other nation in the world for how the Australian economy is going. Perhaps if the Treasurer went off-shore to some authority other than the persons who gave him his silver medal last year- Mr Peter Fisher —It is not worth a brass razoo now. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He should give it back; I admit that. The Treasurer should seek the real facts about what is going on off-shore. Let us look at Australian interest rates compared with those of our export competitors. Australian interest rates for housing are regulated at 13.5 per cent, but the real interest rate for loans over $100,000 is 19.5 per cent. At an inflation rate of 6.5 per cent we are looking at a real rate of interest of 13 per cent. Let me again emphasise that that is the largest real interest rate since the Depression of 1933. The interest rate in France is 5.8 per cent; in the United Kingdom 12.6 per cent in; West Germany 5.3 per cent; in the United States 9.3 per cent; and in Japan 7 per cent. None of those countries comes within 7 per cent of the Australian interest rate. France has an inflation rate of 4 1/2 per cent; United Kingdom 5 per cent; West Germany 2 1/4 per cent; United States 3 1/2 per cent; and Japan 2 per cent. Australia's real rate of interest is a record compared with those of our major competitors, and that is the point at issue. Whatever else anybody may say about the economy and the standard of living of every person in Australia, we depend on how much we trade our goods overseas and how competitively we can get them on to that market. We can talk about the effect on exports of devaluing the dollar, but it is not worth a crumpet if that advantage is removed by upping the real interest rates for the borrowers of Australia who are supplying our export needs. That is the basic economic fact that the Government should start to learn. These interest rates reflect a necessity for other people to seek in Australia a high interest return on their money, the rates being a world record as far as our competitors are concerned; or people speculate here. The unfortunate fact is that we bring in that money from overseas to boost the dollar. It has not happened this year; it has been shrinking all the time. So people get a double advantage by bringing off-shore money into Australia. Not only do they get high interest rates, but they are able to gamble on the dollar devaluing more; and that money will be repatriated when the dollar sinks to the bottom of the barrel and there are people in Australia who believe that the dollar has not yet bottomed against the United States dollar and that it has further to go. That not only shows the contempt of the world for our dollar but also indicates what the world thinks about our arrangement with ANZUS at the beginning of this year. The Labor Party should not forget that. It is all tied up together. The inflation rate is predicted in the 1985 Budget to rise to 8 per cent, which has already brought in the speculators. Within three weeks of presenting the Budget and indicating that increase in inflation-I believe that is a minimum amount, not a maximum-the interest rate for housing has gone up by 0.5 per cent. I believe that there is a connection there. After the Budget, on 22 August 1985, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said: `This Budget will bring interest rates down'. He is the man who is supposed to have the concern of the rural populace of Australian and he is condemning it to an ever-increasing interest rate. How can they be competitive and improve productivity? No wonder the farm percentage performance is slimming. We have had the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer about reduced interest rates. The Treasurer had the hide today to waffle at the dispatch box about there being no issue. It is not an issue for him because he lives in an ivory tower and he is not prepared to listen to find out what is happening. As far as I am concerned, it was probably the most pathetic performance that the Treasurer of Australia has given in this regard. Who suffers under these high interest rates? Obviously home owners do. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has already indicated other areas in which people suffer. There is no doubt that our export industries are suffering. The cost of interest is one of those items that cannot be reduced; it is a fixed charge. Small businesses in Australia likewise cannot go anywhere else and cannot reduce their borrowing costs; they are the ones who will be going out the back door in large numbers. It will not be large businesses, but small businesses. As I said, the highest uncontrolled cost that we have in rural industry and small business today is the cost of borrowing. I nearly took a back flip when the Treasurer said that the interest rate is set in the market place. I just pose this question to the House: Who influences that market? Nobody influences it more than the Commonwealth Government itself when putting in place monetary policies such as this Government has. That is exactly the situation. The market has reacted not to the demands of the bloke down the street or the person on the land; it has responded to the demand of the Government to fund its deficit, to cover its unfavourable balance of trade. That is who influences the market and the Treasurer might do well to go on the record so we can see what he says in that regard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.02) —Opposition speakers have tried to present their case in terms of how they would go about managing the economy and how they would try to marry their opportunism to the new-found philosophy of economic liberty. Of course the difficulty they face is that they do not quite know whether they want to be regulationist in terms of the demands of the National Party of Australia or whether they want to free things up according to the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). No clear philosophy is emerging. We have in this case an Opposition that is deciding whether it prefers to be traditionally opportunistic or wants in fact to try to divine some other philosophy. Members of the Opposition are having a great deal of difficulty. I suggest to them that when this short-lived experiment begins to collapse around their ears they had better summon Senator Chaney out of the Senate and get him over here in A grade to lead them out of the wilderness. They will not be led out of the wilderness in this current situation. They do not have a philosophy; they do not know which way they want to go. The honorable member for Mackellar talks about freeing things up, but what does he want to do in regard to housing interest rates? Is he prepared to have people face the higher housing rates that would come about? We have some doubts about that. The honourable member for Mackellar and others are trying somehow to dredge policies out of the ground. They are going around in a swamp with a divining rod hoping that something will pop up. That is the way they get their philosophy; that is the way they try to manage the economy. At this stage they are trying to work out a wages policy. Their philosophy is simple-get young people to bargain with employers and strike a contract. What a wonderful vision they have-a 17-year-old walking into an employer saying: `I have come to reach a freely bargained contract with you about what you are going to pay me'. Where have honourable members opposite been all their lives? What they are putting is absolute hypocrisy. I can tell them where they will be-they will stay in opposition because their policy is disreputable and just does not hang together. We now have this person from the private sector coming in here and saying that it is easy, any 17-year-old who has not worked for a couple of years can go to an employer and say that he wants to bargain for his wage rate; that is what free markets are all about. That can be done in a place like Newcastle or Wollongong. A young person can roll up to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and say: `I want to strike a reasonable rate for working in the refinery'. It will not happen. The Australian electorate sees through this. The Opposition is searching around in the fog for a philosophy. It will not work. The electorate recognises very clearly that the members of the coalition had their chance and failed. They are absolute economic vandals. We will not let them get back in charge of the economy as that would be like giving kerosene to an arsonist and saying: `Go ahead have a good time, free things up, get things going'. That is a wonderful way to manage the economy. What did members of the previous Government give us? They gave us double digit inflation and lost 250,000 jobs in their last year. What a recipe for desperation. What about interest rates? They kept being pushed up, despite all the posturings of the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). We are not sure where the honourable member for Dawson stands in this. He paints himself as a dry yet when gets into north Queensland he wants to subsidise everything, prop everything up just the way they do in north Queensland. That is all right, but I wish we knew where he stood. They are all over the place. They are an absolutely disreputable bunch and the Australian public recognises them as such. What about their performance in regard to jobs? We have created 410,000 jobs since we have been in office, but they destroyed 250,000 jobs in their last year. Who was their Treasurer? The recently resurrected elected Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). We will not let anyone forget the $9.6 billion dollar man, the man who suddenly says: `I have this new formula for getting things right-I will do what Margaret Thatcher tells me'. I suggest to those opposite who come in here posturing about Margaret Thatcher and her performance that they look at what happened in Birmingham, look at the social disruption that the absolutely shonky people in charge of Britain have produced. Even if they want to produce that sort of outcome in Australia the Australian people will not let them get into government because they are not prepared to take that risk. They saw what the previous Government did. It destroyed jobs and housing. Honourable members opposite come in here and say that they are terribly worried about housing, but I can recall when the coalition was in government some of its members, some of whom are in this chamber at the moment, saying that people had to learn to live without housing, that the Australian people would have to be educated and led to realise that they might not own a house in their lifetime. They did very well. They got housing starts to the lowest level in 20 years. What an achievement. They talked housing down to the absolute floor level. What have we done in our time in office? Not only has the first home owners scheme delivered new houses to lots of people, but also we have commencements both in the housing sector and the construction sector up to a respectable level and the economy is humming along. We have people who previously lived in caravans now in their own homes. Honourable members opposite are a disreputable lot. All this disreputable lot could say was that people would have to learn to live without housing. What a recipe for disaster and desperation. They come in here with some wafty philosophy, saying: `We are going to put it all right, just give us a chance'. We will not give them a chance; neither will the Australian people. We recognise that honourable members opposite are fundamentally incompetent and cannnot work up a philosophy. What do Opposition members want? Do they want to deregulate housing rates, or do they want to have them controlled? On what sort of platform do they want to formulate their policy? Are they worried about the current operation of monetary policy? Would they leave everything freed up? From their comments I take it that they are very concerned about us having floated the dollar and deregulated the financial system. Yet according to their philosophy that is exactly what they would do. They cannot have all the pleasure without some of the pain. What is it that they want? We really are waiting and I think we will have to wait for a long time. The fortunate thing is that the Australian community will not be that patient and they will keep those opposite tossed on that side of the House for a long time. The community has had a quick look at them already in the last couple of days and has not found in them any new magic wisdom because it is not there. The public recognises that the Leader of the Opposition, when he as Treasurer, was the fellow in charge of the economic disaster that was called economic policy. This policy caused collapsing jobs, a collapsing housing sector, wages being pushed up, inflation at double digit levels-levels approaching absolute economic disaster-and high levels of bankruptcies, particularly in the small business sector. The Australian community knows that this will not work. Opposition members should not come in here and try to posture and divine some philosophy. The honourable member for Mackellar talks about individual liberty. He really has to look at whether he has a consistent philosophy in respect to individual liberty. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has already said that he wants to take up the challenge with some Opposition members about the question of whether we should return to the traditional family values that the honourable member for Mackellar talks about. The Opposition really has a lot of things to sort out. It has not sorted them out yet. There has been no indication in this chamber in the last couple of days that it has sorted them out. What we can say, in terms of our address to the Australian community-and it is a convincing address-is that the scores are on the board in terms of jobs created, in terms of restoring housing and in terms of economic growth. The scores are there. The score that the previous Government put up was one of economic disaster. The rebirth of those policies will not get it anywhere. We recognise that the Opposition is made up of a lot of retreads. It was in government before and a lot its members failed. The Australian community also recognises that a lot of its members failed and that they are retreads. It is no good saying: `We have just discovered this new philosophy and we are going to get it right'. The Opposition had better have words to Senator Chaney and get him over here into A grade where the business side of things is and suggest that he take over the leadership after the current leader has failed because it is as clear as the day that in fact he will fail. The Opposition has not got it together and I suggest that it will have to do a lot of hard work. It is going to have to get some consistency. Liberal members should talk to their friends in the National Party of Australia about what the policies are going to be in country areas. Is it going to privatise Telecom Australia? Is it going to get people to pay $50,000 or $60,000, which will be the marginal cost for having a telephone connected? These questions are very awkward, but they are questions that the Opposition is going to have to answer. Will it convince the young Australian people that they can walk in and bargain with any employer and strike a wage rate that is fair and equitable with no exploitation? In fact, one wonders whether some of the people sitting here with their so-called wealth have been guilty of the exploitation of young people themselves. I think honourable members opposite have to have a good look at themselves. We have to face up to the reality that these so-called marketeers are probably nothing more than freebooters. They are all jumping around and getting terribly excited. Maybe we are getting close to reality. The so-called marketeers are probably nothing but freebooters. Who could say convincingly to someone who has been without a job for some time: `I want you to wander in blithely and bargain with your boss about a wage rate'? That is absolute nonsense. We recognise that it is nonsense, as does the Australian community, but this is the so-called privatisation and freeing up of the market-place. I suggest to all honourable members opposite that before they come in here with these matters of public importance they should think the matter through and recognises that the Australian community judged them harshly in 1983. The community also recognises that a lot of people who are presenting themselves again now are the retreads from 1983 who have not improved. Their performance was bad. They tried it then and the result was disastrous. We are not about to have that lot inflicted upon the Australian community again because we will continue to put runs on the board and the community will recognise this. I believe that this is just the sort of proposition that should be rejected in this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Dairy Produce Amendment Bill contains two technical amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1924. The first will correct a legal difficulty in the operation of the export pooling arrangements for the dairy industry. The second amendment will remove administrative difficulties with the present legislation with respect to the power of the Australian Dairy Corporation to enter contracts. Both amendments are clearly in the interests of the dairy industry. The amendments are a temporary measure, reflecting the fact that the major revisions-including to the Australian Dairy Corporation's financial powers-which are part and parcel of the proposed revised arrangements have not proceeded as soon as the Government would have wished. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 20AB of the Dairy Produce Act 1924. This section establishes an export pooling scheme which essentially provides for the averaging of returns for exports of prescribed dairy produce during a season. Since its inception in 1977 advance payments on account of likely final payments have been approved and made under the section. However, amendments which were made to section 20AB of the Act in 1978 led to an anomaly which was only discovered during a recent comprehensive review of dairy legislation. The effect of the anomaly is to prevent the making of advance payments to exporters of dairy produce from the dairy produce export pools. Honourable members might have noted that clause 3 of the Bill will correct this anomaly both prospectively and retrospectively. I should stress that this particular provision is beneficial in effect and that no burdens or liabilities will arise from its retrospective application. Clause 4 provides for the replacement of section 25 of the Act. This section requires the ADC to seek ministerial approval before entering contracts involving more than $100,000 unless the contract relates to the sale or disposal of dairy produce. The proposed replacement for section 25 will remove the requirement for prior ministerial approval in respect of two classes of contracts from time to time entered into by the ADC. The first class of contracts proposed to be removed from the ambit of section 25 is futures contracts for hedging purposes in relation to sales or proposed sales of dairy produce by the ADC. Until recently a view had apparently been taken that such contracts were an integral part of the sale transaction and were thus automatically excluded from the operation of section 25. Recent legal advice has, however, concluded that futures contracts are quite separate from the sale contract and thus technically fall within section 25. Since it is necessary to act very quickly when entering futures contracts for hedging purposes and it is quite possible for delays, at times, to attend to the ministerial approval process, it is proposed to specifically remove such contracts from the operation of section 25. The second class of contracts proposed to be removed from the ambit of section 25 is contracts entered into by the ADC pursuant to the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958, that is, the Sales Promotion Act. Legal advice has been obtained which states that while it is not clear that section 25 of the Act applies to contracts entered into under the Sales Promotion Act it would be prudent to assume that it does. Given that the ADC's promotional activities centre on campaigns mounted by advertising agencies retained by the ADC to act on its behalf there are practical difficulties in identifying specific contractual arrangements to place before the Minister for approval. Further, it seems unreasonable that action specifically authorised under one Act should be subject to conditions in another. In this context it is relevant that the ADC's promotional plans for each year are fully discussed with and, in effect, approved by the industry. The new section 25 will also raise the threshold value of contracts, above which ministerial approval is required, from $100,000 to $500,000. The increase in the threshold amount is consistent with current practice in respect of similar provisions in legislation establishing statutory authorities, as is the provision for a higher amount to be prescribed. In the absence of the latter provision it would be necessary for the Parliament itself to amend the legislation to increase the threshold amount as money values changed over time. By providing for higher amounts to be set by regulation parliamentary time will be saved. At the same time the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny will still be provided. There are no financial implications for the Commonwealth arising from the amendments. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, for Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The States Grants (General Revenue) Bill seeks to give effect to the arrangement agreed to at the Primers Conference held on 30 May 1985 for the provision of general purpose assistance to the States. The Bill provides for payments to be made to the States in each of the three years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 in the form of general revenue grants. Provision is also made for advance payments of assistance to be made in the first six months of 1988-89 pending the passage of legislation to implement such further arrangements as may apply for that year. The purpose of these general revenue grants is to assist the States, by way of subventions to their budgets, in the financing of their recurrent outlays. The States are free to determine the purposes for which these grants are spent in accordance with their own budgetary priorities. The grants provided for in the Bill constitute the major component of Commonwealth assistance to the States. In 1985-86 it is estimated that some $11.3 billion would be provided to the States under the Bill out of total net payments to the States of some $20.7 billion. The Bill provides for the making of three types of general revenue grants to the States - financial assistance grants, health grants and special revenue assistance grants. The financial assistance grants represent the major element of the general revenue grants and provide the main means for implementing the distribution of grants among the States recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and agreed to at the May 1985 Premiers Conference. They replace the tax sharing grants which were made under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981. The arrangements for making these grants expired on 30 June 1985. In deciding to introduce new arrangements, the Government was concerned to provide a more certain basis for assisting the States, compared with the substantial year to year variations in grants under the tax sharing arrangements and their antecedents. The Bill provides for a pre-determined real level of financial assistance grants to be made to the States in each of the three years to which it applies. In 1985-86, the States will receive the same real level of grants as in 1984-85, while in the two remaining years they will receive a real increase of 2 per cent on the grants paid in the previous year. In proposing these real increases in grants to the States, the Commonwealth took into account the circumstances facing the Australian economy and considered that, against the background that the levels of government services provided by the States had increased significantly in recent years, it was appropriate to aim for a slower growth in public sector spending. Reflecting this, it was appropriate to envisage a somewhat slower real growth in general revenue grants than would have occurred under a continuation of tax sharing arrangements. The price index to be used in calculating the real level of grants will be the all groups consumer price index for the six State capital cities, taking the movement in the index for the year to the March quarter of each financial year over the movement in the preceding year. This arrangement, which is traditional for payments of this type, allows the final amount of the grants to be determined during the year to which they relate. The Bill provides for the total amount of financial assistance grants to be distributed among the States in each year in accordance with per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. These relativities were determined by the Grants Commission following its examination of the fiscal capacities of the States over the three years 1981-82 to 1983-84 and represent the relative shares of the grants which the Commission considered would be most consistent with the principle of fiscal equalisation; that is, they represent the relative share of assistance which the Commission considers would be required to enable each State, provided that it makes a comparable revenue effort, to provide services to its residents at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the other States. This is in contrast with the arrangements which applied over the past three years, when the operation of guarantee provisions in the tax sharing arrangements prevented the phased implementation of the relativities that had been agreed at the Premiers Conference in 1982. The health grants provided for in the Bill represent a continuation of the identified health grants that were first introduced for most States in 1981-82 and for South Australia and Tasmania from 1 February, 1984. They are general revenue grants but were identified as replacing specific purpose grants previously paid to the States under hospital cost sharing agreements and payments for community health and school dental programs. The total amount of the health grants to the States will be provided under the Bill on the same basis as the financial assistance grants, with the same real amount being paid in 1985-86 as in 1984-85 and a 2 per cent real increase in each of the remaining two years. The distribution of the grants among the States included in the Bill will preserve the same per capita distribution of grants as applied in 1984-85. Taken alone, this distribution of health grants preserves an advantage which South Australia and Tasmania received from the operation of the former hospital cost sharing agreements with those States; however, from 1985-86 that advantage is to be offset through the distribution of the financial assistance grants. As a result of their 1975 hospital cost sharing agreements with the Commonwealth-which were for 10 years rather than the five-year agreements entered into by the other States at that time-South Australia and Tasmania continued to receive specific purpose assistance for hospital operating costs until 1 February 1984 when, as part of the arrangements for the introduction of Medicare, they agreed to participate fully in the identified health grants. These States chose to continue to receive assistance under the hospital cost sharing agreements beyond 1981-82, when the other States moved to identified health grants as it placed them in an advantageous position relative to the other States. This was because their hospital cost sharing agreements were not subject to the deductions that were made in the identified health grants to other States in 1981-82 and 1982-83 to reflect the increased revenue raising capacity assessed to be available to those States from hospital charges under the then new health insurance arrangements. The advantage was retained when the two States moved to identified health grants in February 1984. This advantage has not previously been offset in the tax sharing grants as the Commonwealth Government accepted the view put by the two States at the June 1982 Premiers Conference that their entitlements under the hospital cost sharing agreements overrode fiscal equalisation principles. The basis for these States' advantageous shares of identified health grants ceased on 30 June 1985 and accordingly from 1985-86 this advantage will be offset in these States' share of financial assistance grants as determined by the new per capita relativities. The arrangements in this Bill therefore ensure that the combined financial assistance and health grants to South Australia and Tasmania will henceforth be comparable with those to the other States. The special revenue assistance grants payable to South Australia and Tasmania provided for in the Bill represent a transitional arrangement which recognises that the share that each of those States will receive in aggregate of financial assistance and health grants in each of the three years commencing in 1985-86 will be considerably lower when compared with the share they received in 1984-85 of tax sharing and health grants. To help smooth the adjustment process for these two States, the Commonwealth agreed at the May 1985 Premiers Conference to provide special revenue assistance grants to those States, which in 1985-86 will represent two-thirds of the difference between the financial assistance grants actually payable to those States and the notional grant that would have been paid if the relative advantage of the two States derived from the health grants had been preserved. Half this amount will be paid in 1986-87. The effect of these grants will therefore be to phase out these States, relative health grant advantage over three years. In addition to the general revenue grants provided for in the Bill, the Commonwealth agreed at the May 1985 Premiers Conference to the provision of two other payments of special revenue assistance in 1985-86 only. These were: A payment of $10m to Queensland which is to be made in accordance with the Grants Commission's assessment in its 1 April 1985 report that Queensland's financial relativity was disturbed by the introduction of Medicare. It should be noted in this regard that as a result of the introduction of the new relativities in 1985-86 the relative cost to Queensland of its free public hospital system will be reflected in its share of financial assistance grants and, consequently, there will be no grounds for ongoing special assistance to Queensland in respect of Medicare compensation grants; and A further payment to Tasmania estimated at $31.2m. This supplementary assistance is to be provided in recognition of the fact that Tasmania's financial assistance grant was to fall by more in relative terms than that of any other State as a result of the introduction of the new relativities, and to ensure that its total general revenue grants do not decline by more than 4 per cent in real terms in 1985-86. Authority for these payments is being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Under the memorandum of understanding in respect of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and a self-governing Northern Territory, it is provided that general revenue grants should be payable to the Northern Territory on a similar basis to that for the States. Authority for payments to the Territory in 1985-86 analagous to those to be provided to the States under this Bill is also included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. The general revenue grants provided for in this Bill are the result of agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The Bill provides the States with certainty in the real level of grants available to them for three years, and will provide for the distribution of the grants among the States consistent with the principle of fiscal equalisation. At the same time the level of grants is consistent with the Government's overall budgetary and economic objectives. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1985-86 and in subsequent years together with the associated prospective deficits in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot legally exceed the moneys available to it, there is a need to seek authority to finance certain expenditures from borrowings to the extent that amounts appropriated by the Parliament for expenditure from that Fund exceed estimated revenues. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow money for defence and other purposes and to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the Loan Fund rather than from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament under annual Appropriation Acts and under Acts providing for special or standing appropriations. Successive governments have, for many years, introduced legislation in the form of an annual Loan Bill to authorise the issue of moneys from the Loan Fund to meet defence expenditures or to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund from Loan Fund in respect of certain non-defence expenditures. In view of the non-controversial, accounting nature of the legislation, which has been acknowledged by all the major parties in the Parliament, this Bill has been drafted as standing rather than annual legislation. That is, the Bill would provide authority for the necessary financing measures for 1985-86 and subsequent financial years to the extent necessary in the light of the respective years' Budget deficits. Standing loan legislation will in no way detract from Parliament's ability to debate the Budget. Nor, as I have already stated, does it impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to authorise, and appropriate moneys for, expenditures for particular purposes. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Budget deficit in prospect for 1985-86 is estimated to be some $4.9 billion. This gives rise to a prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of around $6.0 billion. Existing standing authorities enable some $2.2 billion of expenditure to be charged to Loan Fund in 1985-86 leaving a shortfall of some $3.8 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. The amount of borrowings that may be undertaken pursuant to the proposed legislation is, in the case of defence expenditure, the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1)-some $6.2 billion in 1985-86-and any moneys for defence purposes that may be approved in subsequent appropriation Acts for a particular financial year. The effective limit in 1985-86 is likely to be significantly less than appropriations as defence expenditures cannot be charged to loan fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. It is estimated that the 1985-86 limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. . Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The importance of the road transport industry to Australian transport cannot be over emphasised. Some 75 per cent of all freight is moved at some stage by this industry. Overall the industry performs almost 30 per cent of the total domestic transport task. For all that, it is an industry that is not without significant problems, notably a history of a lack of clear national direction. It generally experiences all the difficulties associated with an oversupply of capacity. These problems are exacerbated in times of economic downturn such as that which occurred in 1982-83. The road transport industry has more than its fair share of instability. It is easy to get into, yet once in operators find it virtually impossible to leave of their own accord. This instability is reflected by the rate of bankruptcies, amongst the highest of any industry. It is compounded by the fly-by-night operator who often disappears leaving the battling small truckie unpaid. The lack of clear national direction has contributed to the development of inequities within the industry, where some operators do not contribute as much as others to the maintenance of our roads through registration fees. These circumstances have their human face-the small businessman who having invested everything in his trucking operation finds he loses not only his business but his house and often his family. Those who stay in the industry face the prospects of a continuing battle of living hand to mouth, often working long hours pushing themselves and their trucks to the limit. Whilst claims are often made that some even go beyond limits to endanger safety, the vast majority in the industry attempt to do a good honest job in the most professional manner possible. It is regrettable, however, that previous Federal governments ignored pleas for help until industry circumstances became so bad that some operators felt they had no alternative but to take the extreme action that led to the Razorback blockade of 1979. Whilst the States provided some assistance, when the dust had cleared there was still no real Federal leadership. It was only when we assumed office that there was a Federal government prepared to take a comprehensive look at the industry. We commissioned the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry with, I am pleased to say, the full co-operation of all State and Territory governments. This initiative was welcomed by the industry, trade unions and users. The inquiry, comprising Mr Tom May as Chairman, Professor Gordon Mills and Mr Jim Scully, presented its report in September 1984. This excellent report provided a blue-print for a new and vigorous direction to improve the industry. The general thrust of the inquiry's report was endorsed in December 1984 by the Australian Transport Advisory Council which comprises Federal, State and Territory Ministers responsible for transport and marine matters. An initial fast-track package of reforms based on the inquiry's recommendations was subsequently endorsed by ATAC in June 1985. The report and the subsequent fast-track package have received broad industry and general community support as these groups have recognised that the recommendations must be implemented as a package. I cannot recall any other transport initiative of such importance which has generated and maintained the good will and co-operation between Federal, State and Territory governments and all sections of the industry. The fast-track package endorsed by ATAC involved the following initiatives: For the Federal Government the introduction of legislation providing for the registration of vehicles and the licensing of operators engaged in interstate trade and commerce and the establishment of the Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee-ARTAC-within the Transport Industries Advisory Council; and for State governments the introduction of graduated truck driver licences, which will require that the drivers operating the large interstate vehicles have had appropriate experience; improvements in railway cost recovery to match any improvements in cost recovery in the road freight industry, and this would also apply to Australian National Railways Commission; the introduction of the May reforms relating to finance and insurance to provide owner-operators with access to existing consumer protection arrangements; removal of fees charged by some States on vehicles already registered in another State; and removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built up areas. The fast-track package represents a balanced set of reforms for the industry designed to increase professionalism, improve overall safety and set in place a workable cost recovery program. This legislation is the first step in implementing the recommendations of the May report. It is landmark legislation. It also represents another element in achieving the Federal Government's national transport objectives which include: the development of safe, efficient transport systems for the movement of goods and people both within Australia and in international trade; providing the opportunity for all Australians to have reasonable access to transport services for employment, business, recreational and other needs; and implementing these aims in the most efficient and socially effective way. This legislation should also be seen in the context of the principles which guide our involvement in transport. Simply stated these principles include investing in transport infrastructure where there is clear economic and social justification and requiring users to meet the full costs of government provided infrastructure and services to improve economic efficiency. The only exceptions should be where there are clearly identified social requirements. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the co-operation that has been shown by the State and Territory governments, the industry, trade unions and users. All recognise the value in maintaining the package approach so strongly advocated by the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. Accordingly I envisage the progressive implementation through proclamation of the two elements contained in this legislation. I expect the vehicle registration scheme to be proclaimed once substantial progress has been made on implementing the other parts of the fast-track package. Introduction of the operator licensing scheme will follow and is expected to be proclaimed to complement equivalent State legislation. In both cases it is intended that the administration of the Federal schemes will be undertaken by the State and Territory governments as they already have the experience and administrative infrastructure substantially in place. Through this practical example of Federal and State governments working together and with industry we will be able to minimise administrative costs to the industry and reduce bureaucratic involvement. I would now like to turn to the details of the Interstate Road Transport Bill, the first step in implementing the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The legislation before us today can be divided into the following two parts: That providing for the registration of vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce and that establishing a system of operator licensing for those engaged in interstate trade and commerce. As I noted earlier, clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide the arrangements under which the existing State and Territory authorities will operate as agents for the Federal Government in the implementation of both the registration and operator licensing schemes. This approach allows these schemes to be introduced in a manner that minimises the cost to industry. Operators who use vehicles solely for interstate, State-Territory, and Territory-Territory operations may choose to register their vehicles under the Federal scheme. As provided by clause 8, however, any vehicle which has full State or Territory registration can still engage in interstate trade and commerce. Clause 8 will remove the current situation where some vehicles solely engaged in interstate trade and commerce can register under some State schemes where they pay only a nominal fee. Where it is intended that a vehicle be registered under the Federal scheme the owner will be required to ensure that, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9, the appropriate fees have been paid, the vehicle has been inspected by an approved authority, the vehicle is safe and that requirements relating to insurance have been met. Clauses 10 and 11 provide that where a vehicle does not meet safety requirements or have appropriate insurance, it should not be driven on the roads and the appropriate authority can cancel or suspend registration. Clause 12 allows the owner to surrender Federal registration and in such circumstances, under clause 18, to be entitled to receive an appropriate refund. Clause 13 provides for regulations in regard to registered vehicles covering such matters as the display of appropriate registration labels and plates and the maintenance of vehicles. Under the provisions of clauses 14 to 19, the conditions under which Federal registration charges are payable are defined. There is provision for an owner either to nominate a rate based on the actual distance travelled by the vehicle or to accept a flat fixed fee. In circumstances where an owner wishes to utilise the actual distance amount the vehicle must be fitted with an approved charge monitoring device. Such devices are required to reduce the risk of evasion of appropriate charges through tampering of falsification of records. We could not afford to rely on the notorious log books of yesterday. Under both charging arrangements it will be a requirement that an initial fee equivalent to the fixed registration fee be paid at the commencement of the registration period. In the event that a Federally registered vehicle is used for part of the year in intrastate operations, clause 19 permits a refund to be paid on the basis of the proportion of total distance travelled in approved intrastate operations to total distance travelled during the registration period. Clauses 21 to 23 establish the Interstate Road Transport Trust Fund to be operated on the same basis as the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund and the Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund. All vehicle charges will be paid into that trust fund. Payments from the trust fund shall be made to the States and the Territories for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by vehicles registered under the Federal scheme. As established by the principles described in clause 23 the distribution of trust fund moneys will be based on the actual road usage by these vehicles in the respective States and Territories. This arrangement guarantees that the integrity of the trust fund will be maintained as expenditure of moneys raised by the registration scheme will be directly related to road damage caused by these vehicles. Normal conditions relating to the provision of appropriate information and audits are also included in clause 23. In addition, a condition of payment from the trust fund is that the States will not impose fees or charges on interstate or other States registered vehicles to which they do not also subject their own vehicles. Regulations will be introduced to rule ineligible any such State scheme, thus providing Federal Parliament with the opportunity to ensure that the regulations are consistent with the stated objective of the fast-truck package of eliminating out of State fees. It is intended that the operator licensing provisions of Part IV of the Bill will be introduced in conjunction with similar schemes operated by the States. Clause 25 will require that all those involved in interstate trade and commerce hold a Federal or State operator's licence whether engaging in business as a truck operator, freight forwarder or agent. The granting of a Federal licence will be automatic, provided the applicant is not a disqualified person or the declared associate of a disqualified person. However, clause 26 provides that the Federal licence will not be granted until at least seven days after the application is made. This will allow any person who proposes to become an interstate road transport operator to consider appropriate information on the pitfalls that can be encountered in the industry. In this way we are maintaining freedom of entry into the industry whilst providing the means to ensure that people who join do so with their eyes wide open. Arrangements under which a person is disqualified from participating in the interstate road transport business are established in clause 27. In simple terms these provisions are directed at the person who has operated in a manner that compromises public safety. Disqualification will be determined by the courts. Clause 28 provides that records obtained from monitoring devices cannot be used in an application for disqualification until any criminal proceedings have been dealt with by the courts, have been dropped or are not to be initiated. Clause 30 establishes the circumstances under which a person may be declared to be the associate of a disqualified person. This association is taken to be established if the disqualified person has the capacity to influence the operation of an interstate road transport business. Clauses 31 and 32 provide for appropriate registers to be kept and require that annual notice be given by those people wishing to continue to hold their Federal operators licence. Clause 34 allows the Minister to establish Federal road safety standards. These standards may be used as part of the criteria against which the conduct of those engaged in interstate transport can be judged to determine whether public safety is at risk. Part VI of the Bill relates to the installation and use of appropriate monitoring devices. This will enable the objective assessment of claims of unprofessional conduct by parts of the industry. Clause 43 provides drivers and operators with a number of protections regarding the use of records produced by monitoring devices. In essence, these records will not be available to prosecute individual breaches of traffic laws. However, they may be adduced by the defence. Through the use of appropriate monitoring devices the Federal scheme will contribute to greater professionalism and safer operating arrangements within the industry. Under clauses 44 to 47 appropriate arrangements are established to allow authorised officers to stop and inspect vehicles and to examine records. Clause 49 formally establishes that this legislation is subject to the requirement to maintain section 92 of the Constitution. Clause 52 also guarantees that those operating under the Federal registration and licensing schemes will not be impeded by any State or Territory arrangements that are in direct conflict with the Federal provisions. Delegations which are necessary for a comprehensive national scheme are authorised by clause 50. Under clause 51 certain decisions taken by the authorities are made subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. This legislation represents a major advance for Australian land transport. As I emphasised earlier, it is part of a broader package of balanced measures to continue the development of the road transport industry. It is legislation that is long overdue. This legislation complements our land transport initiatives which include: The Australian land transport program, which continues our road funding efforts at record levels, and also determines which portion of fuel excise is related to roads investment and which portion is a general tax; the Australian National Railways Commission Act, which establishes a more commercially oriented Australian National Railway with clear targets against which its commercial perfomance can be judged; and the establishment of the Inter-State Commission to function as a standing committee of inquiry on interstate transport matters. I have referred to the Commission the vexed issue of the relative levels of cost recovery for interstate road and competing rail operations. With these measures the Hawke Government has established the first comprehensive and coherent land transport strategy for this nation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an integral part of the Federal interstate vehicle registration scheme established by the Interstate Road Transport Bill. It provides for charges to be paid by motor vehicles and trailers registered under that Bill. These charges are to recover road maintenance and upkeep costs resulting from damage to roads by motor vehicles and trailers engaged in interstate trade and commerce. Clause 5 refers to the two charging options established by the principal Bill. It provides for a schedule of vehicle charges to be established for either the actual distance option or the nominal distance option. Clause 6 provides for these charges to be made by regulation. I have already directed the Inter-State Commission to review the issue of cost recovery from vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. The Commission is to report by 30 April 1986 and has been asked to recommend appropriate charges to apply under the Federal scheme having regard to equivalent State charges and the cost recovery rates achieved by competing rail services. In the event that it is necessary to establish charges not based on the Commission's report these will reflect the views of the national road freight industry inquiry. The inquiry saw an initial fee of $1,400 for a 38-tonne unit as appropriate. Accordingly should such charges be required the fixed annual fee would be determined on the basis of a schedule which I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL INTERSTATE VEHICLE AND TRAILER CHARGES GVM/GCM** Charge up to 2.5 tonnes $3.20/quarter tonne 2.5 to 5 tonnes $32 plus $0.90/quarter tonne 5 to 7.5 tonnes $41 plus $1.30/quarter tonne 7.5 to 10 tonnes $54 plus $1.60/quarter tonne 10 to 12.5 tonnes $70 plus $2.20/quarter tonne 12.5 to 15 tonnes $92 plus $2.80/quarter tonne 15 to 17.5 tonnes $120 plus $3.70/quarter tonne 17.5 to 20 tonnes $157 plus $4.80/quarter tonne 20 to 22.5 tonnes $205 plus $6.30/quarter tonne 22.5 to 25 tonnes $268 plus $8.10/quarter tonne 25 to 27.5 tonnes $349 plus $10.70/quarter tonne 27.5 to 30 tonnes $456 plus $14.00/quarter tonne 30 to 32.5 tonnes $596 plus $18.20/quarter tonne 32.5 to 35 tonnes $778 plus $23.90/quarter tonne 35 to 37.5 tonnes $1,017 plus $31.10/quarter tonne 37.5 tonnes and over $1,328 plus $40.60/quarter tonne * Gross Vehicle Mass or Gross Combination Mass as applicable Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the House. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement that part of the Government's indigenous crude oil marketing policy which provides for the imposition of a 3c per litre special customs duty on imports of light crude oils and petroleum products. The Government's policy on indigenous crude oil marketing was announced by the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, on 9 October 1984. In the 1984 autumn sittings the Government introduced a Bill to impose, under certain circumstances, a special stand-by duty on imports of certain light oils. The Government decided, whilst that Bill was on the table of the House, to conduct a major review of crude oil marketing policy. The review took into account representations made by the oil industry on the various provisions of this earlier Bill. Accordingly, the 1984 Bill was allowed to lapse with the prorogation of the last Parliament. The Bill now before the House is part of the package of measures which the Government decided to implement following consideration of the crude oil marketing review. The Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill 1985 reflects the Government's determination that crude oil produced in Australia will, where possible, be refined in Australia. The Bill is closely tied to the partial allocation scheme that currently allocates most of Australia's crude oil production to particular oil refiners. Under the scheme, the Government announces how much crude oil it expects each refiner to lift during each quarter from each producing area. Monthly records of each refiner's performance are kept for each producing area and are compared with their lifting obligations. If a particular refiner has failed to meet its obligations to lift indigenous crude oil over an extended period, the provisions contained in this Bill are to come into effect. The commencement date of the Bill is the day on which it receives the royal assent. It should be noted, however, that the crude oil marketing partial allocation scheme announced by Senator Walsh came into effect on 1 January 1985, except for the arrangements for the imposition of a special penalty duty which are contained in this Bill. The provisions of the Bill require that duty can only be imposed on importations of certain oil on and from the date of publication of a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice which declares that the duty is imposed. It is not possible for that Gazette notice to be published within a time period of two months after the date on which the Bill receives the royal assent. The Bill does provide, however, that shortfalls of Bass Strait oil during each of three consecutive annual months that occurred after June 1985 can be taken into account. The purpose of enabling shortfalls that occurred after June 1985 being able to be taken into account is to implement the previously announced and clearly defined government intention that this Bill would take effect, as far as practicable, from the introduction of the crude oil marketing partial allocation scheme. Similarly, for minor oil from a particular oil source, underliftings during a period of six consecutive annual months that occurred after March 1985 can be taken into account. The significance of the dates of June and March 1985 is that the ends of these months are approximately three and six months before the prospective date of the Bill receiving the royal assent. In the policy statement of 9 October 1984, the Government announced that the Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duties) Bill 1984 then before the Parliament would be redrafted to enable the penalty import duty to be applied to both crude oil and refined products and to be imposed on an individual company rather than across the board. As with the previous Bill, the Government has limited the application of the duty to goods of a density below 0.9. This means that no duty will be payable on imports that are used to meet the demand for heavy oil products such as bitumen. Imports of heavy oils do not compete with indigenous crudes and it would not be appropriate to apply the penalty duty to them. The Bill also recognises the different scales of oil production in Bass Strait and the smaller or minor oil producing areas. For Bass Strait oil, action to impose the penalty duty can only commence when a refiner has had a shortfall in liftings for each of three consecutive annual months occurring after June 1985. In relation to the smaller oil producing areas, action can only commence against a refiner who has failed to lift the allocated percentage of minor oil in each of six consecutive annual months occurring after March 1985. The provisions contained in clause 10 of the Bill would come into effect once a refiner had failed to meet its allocation obligations in regard to Bass Strait oil. The Minister for Resources and Energy is, firstly, required to give the refiner a written notice setting out particulars of the shortfall. That notice will also state the need for imformation that will satisfy the Minister that the shortfall was not caused by factors principally under the control of the refiner. The refiner is given one calendar month to respond to this notice. If, within that calendar month, the refiner has not responded to the Minister, or the information supplied does not satisfy the Minister, further steps may be taken to impose the penalty duty. After making the decision that the shortfall was within the control of the refiner, the Minister for Resources and Energy is required to notify the refiner in writing of the particulars of the decision. This notification will also state that, unless otherwise precluded by a later provision of the Bill, a stand-by certificate may be issued to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. That certificate, if issued, will specify the refiner and the three annual months in which the shortfall had occurred and will certify that it is appropriate for the duty to be payable. Sub-clause 10 (4) is important in the operation of the Bill as it provides the refiner with the opportunity to make up the shortfall and thus prevent the imposition of the duty. The period allowed for the shortfall to be made up commences at the beginning of the earliest of the three annual months of shortfall and ends one calendar month after the day that the refiner was given the second written notice. Before the penalty duty can be imposed, the Minister for Resources and Energy is also required to publish a Gazette notice inviting persons to be included on a list of eligible persons. Inclusion on the list will ensure that those refiners who purchased the allocated quantities of oil will not be required to pay the penalty duty. It is only when all the requirements I have outlined have been satisfied that the Minister for Resources and Energy is able to issue a stand-by certificate to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Clause 12 of the Bill requires the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, once he or she has received a stand-by certificate, to publish a Gazette notice declaring that duty is payable under the legislation. The duty cannot be imposed from a day earlier than the day of publication of the notice in the Gazette. Similar procedures to those I have just outlined in relation to Bass Strait oil are also applied to minor oil from other fields. In the case of these smaller fields, however, a refiner has to have underlifted minor oil from a particular source for a period of six consecutive annual months occurring after March 1985 before the provisions of clause 11 of the Bill can come into effect. The Bill also includes provisions for the revocation of a penalty duty that has been imposed. Once the Minister for Resources and Energy becomes satisfied after an annual month that a refiner has ceased to have a shortfall or underlift, that Minister shall, by notice in writing to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, revoke the relevant stand-by certificate. Where all stand-by certificates are revoked, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is thereafter obliged, by clause 14, to publish a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice revoking the declaration which imposed the penalty duty. This revocation will have effect on the first day of the annual month after the date that this gazettal notice is published. Clause 15 of the Bill recognises that one refiner may agree with another to purchase oil which forms part of the allocation obligations of the other refiner. Provision is made in clause 15 that the relevant Bass Strait and minor oil allocation notices applicable to both the transferor and transferee are deemed to be adjusted by the transferred quantity or percentage of oil. In addition to the measures contained in the Bill which provide refiners with the opportunity to avoid the imposition of the penalty duty, honourable members may recall that the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985 which was passed in the last autumn sittings included measures which relate to this Bill. Those measures put into place provisions for appeals to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in regard to certain aspects of this legislation. The following matters in the Bill are within the jurisdiction of that Tribunal- 1. A decision of the Minister for Resources and Energy that he or she is, or is not, satisfied of a matter for the purposes of the definition of `list of eligible importers' in sub-clause 4 (1); 2. A decision of that Minister under paragraph 10 (1) (b) that he or she is, or is not, satisfied as to whether a shortfall of Bass Strait oil during each of three consecutive annual months was principally within the control of the refiner; and 3. A decision of that Minister under paragraph 11 (1) (b) that he or she is, or is not, satisfied as to whether an underlifting of minor oil during a period of six consecutive annual months was principally within the control of the refiner. Financial Impact As long as refiners are meeting their lifting obligations, no stand-by duty will be imposed. The refining industry has traditionally met these obligations. Accordingly, the Government would not expect to have to invoke frequently the provisions of this Bill. Consequently, the Bill will normally have no financial impact. If at any stage a refiner fails to meet the allocated requirements and the penalty duty is brought into effect, there will be an increase in Government receipts. It is very difficult to estimate the extent of such an increase but, as an example, if a middle-sized refiner had to pay the duty, then Government receipts would increase by approximately $4m a month. Thus the legislation would have only a marginal effect on Government revenues but could have a major impact on the refiner concerned. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 to implement the legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme announced by the Government on 7 September and 26 October 1984. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme provides for the payment of a subsidy on the cost of transporting certain petroleum products from coastal refineries to consumers in country areas and to fishing vessels which are fuelled at sea. At present the scheme provides that country consumers and fishing vessel operators should pay no more than 5.2c per litre of the cost of transporting eligible petroleum products to their country location or ship refuelling zone. This Bill proposes to strengthen the administration of the freight subsidy scheme, especially in its application to claimants for subsidy at safe anchorage locations and to provide for payments of the freight subsidy on petroleum products produced at inland mini-refineries. The administrative reforms to the scheme are the result of a review of the administration of the scheme at the safe anchorage locations for the fishing industry, which was initiated by the Government in November 1983. On 7 September 1984, the Government announced the introduction of a number of changes resulting from that review designed to strengthen the administration of the scheme as it applies to the fishing industry and to control the potential for abuse by claimants under the scheme. Clause 3 of the Bill provides the legislative authority for the imposition of conditions in a scheme formulated under the Act, relating to the various matters that must be complied with by persons applying for registration as distributors of eligible products, and the declarations and supporting documentation that might be required for submission with claims for subsidy. Clause 4 of the Bill provides the legal sanction for the imposition of penalties for the making of false declarations in relation to subsidy claims for deliveries to safe anchorage locations. These amendments are directed at ensuring that petroleum products for which subsidy is claimed have been actually delivered and that the persons claiming subsidy are indeed legitimate claimants. The second major matter dealt with in this Bill, the extension of the freight subsidy to petroleum products produced at inland mini-refineries, was announced by the Government on 26 October 1984. The amendments are intended to place inland refineries on the same footing as coastal installations, by enabling subsidy to be paid on sales of eligible products produced at such refineries at the same rate as the rate paid on product produced at coastal installations. Owners and operators of mini-refineries will not be eligible to claim subsidy under a scheme as the subsidy will be paid in the normal manner to registered distributors on condition that the benefits of the subsidy are passed on to consumers. Extension of the scheme to include inland mini-refineries will place inland mini-refineries which utilise readily available crude oil deposits on an equal footing with coastal installations. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. The provisions relating to the payment of the subsidy on products produced at inland mini-refineries, which are deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1984, have the effect of validating subsidy payments already made on production at the only current inland installation-at Roma in Queensland-since 1 January 1984. Since the Government's decision to increase the consumer paid margin for the freight subsidy scheme from 1.2c to 5.2c per litre, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 14 May 1985, no subsidy has been paid on products produced at that refinery, as the new consumer paid margin is in excess of the freight differential applying to the location of that mini-refinery. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I present the 236th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled `Medical fraud and overservicing: Report on pathology' and move: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the 236th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled Medical fraud and overservicing: Report on pathology.' Question resolved in the affirmative. Mrs KELLY —I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —In recent years there has been an explosion in the number of pathology services for which Commonwealth benefit-that is, taxpayers money-has been paid. It has been big business and it is getting bigger. Medicare pathology payments are now worth about $300m a year and that figure is growing. A lot of that money is being paid to only 25 pathology groups. This concentration of the industry can perhaps be illustrated by figures from the report. For the First three months of this year 51 per cent of all Medicare pathology benefit payments were made to 25 groups. This was worth $44m to these groups. A closer examination of the figures reveals that seven of the 25 pathology groups received $23m. Is it any wonder then that many serious concerns about pathology have been expressed to the Sectional Committee on Medicare Fraud and Overservicing by the medical profession, including the Australian Medical Association and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia? In general, these concerns have related to two broad areas: First, the changing nature of the pathology industry in Australia-that is, the move towards entrepreneurial medicine-and; second, difficulties with and deficiencies in the Commonwealth's administration of the approved pathology practitioner scheme, the Medicare benefits schedule and other responsibilities related to the Health Insurance Act. In this report the Committee provided insights into the nature and concentrated structure of the pathology industry and deals with the consequences of entrepreneurs infiltrating the industry. It critically analyses the approved pathology practitioner scheme, examines the dominance of high value specialist pathology payments over other ordinary lower value benefits payments and recommends the immediate review of all pathology practitioners and their laboratories. Prior to Medicare there was no system to review effectively pathology benefit claims. The statistical analysis of the pathology industry provided in this report would not have been possible 19 months ago. Although there are over 3,000 approved pathology practitioners, 69 per cent render little or no pathology services. Most of the high benefits are claimed by the 25 pathology groups which employ approximately 170 full time specialist pathologists. For the first three months of this year the 25 pathology groups received 51 per cent of the Medicare pathology benefits, totalling $44m. For the same period, as I have mentioned, the seven top pathology groups received 26 per cent of Medicare benefits, worth $23m. Ninety-nine per cent of these payments were at the significantly higher specialist pathology rate. In 1977 the approved pathology practitioner system was introduced and there have been few changes to it since then. That means that a person can become an approved pathology provider by paying a $10 fee and simply signing a form. As one specialist put it to the Committee: There is nowhere in the schedule that says that only a pathologist should do pathology. Anyone at all can become an Approved Pathology Provider-anybody . . . Anybody can become an approved pathology provider for the payment of $10 and the signing of a form. So there are obvious problems with the approved pathology provider scheme. There is no regular effective review of these providers; therefore, there is little stimulus for them to adhere to the conditions of their original written undertaking. As well, there is no requirement for these people to operate in or refer work to accredited laboratories. A glaring deficiency in the scheme's eligibility criteria is that an approved pathology provider does not necessarily have to be an individual but can be a commercial laboratory. This has led to the infiltration of entrepreneurs and large corporations into the pathology discipline. This, together with the now common practice of fee splitting, has resulted in incentives being routinely offered by entrepreneurs to increase their turnover and capture more of the previously decentralised market. The Committee recommends major changes, including the accreditation of laboratories; the restriction of approved pathology practitioner status to individuals; a significant increase in licence fees; the prohibition of fee splitting; and the restructuring of ground rules covering the payment of specialist pathology benefits. The report examines how and why the majority of pathology services are rendered at the higher specialist pathology benefit rate. The Committee concludes that it appears to be impossible for specialist pathologists actually to perform or effectively supervise the mammoth number of tests billed at the specialist pathology rate, especially in the large decentralised corporate pathology laboratories. The Royal College of Pathology has expressed its concern about instances of specialist pathologists lending their names to laboratories so that the higher specialist benefits can be charged. The Committee recommends revision of the Medicare benefit schedule and several legislative amendments to clarify the eligibility for specialist pathology benefits. Generally all segments of the medical profession have expressed grave concern to the Committee about the growth of entrepreneurs in pathology. These concerns are not about the plush appearance of some of the so-called medical centres, but that these centres want only abuse the national health scheme, involve unethical behaviour, and place profit before patient care. Members of the House may be interested to read about the example of one entrepreneurial doctor that the Committee has mentioned in the report. On pages 90 and 91 of this report we refer to an entrepreneurial doctor whom we call Dr X. We outline in that report some of the procedures by this doctor which are being investigated. The purpose of referring to this doctor is not especially to attack that doctor- Mr Beale —Or attack entrepreneurs. Mrs KELLY —Or to attack entrepreneurs. The purpose is to point out that the profession itself must be aware of problems in the industry. That does not relate to the fact that entrepreneurs are moving into the industry; it relates to the practices they use when they move in. That is the critical point. The Committee report also outlines the difficulties in coming to grips with some of the entrepreneurs in medicine. The growth of corporate medical empires exploiting patients is undoubtedly one of the major problems in medical fraud and overservicing today. It is the responsibility of both the profession and the Government to ensure that the problems detailed in this report are corrected. Before I conclude I would like to pay particular tribute to the staff of the Public Accounts Committee for their assistance. I make particular reference to Peter Mason, who worked as clerk for the Sectional Committee that I chaired. He did a wonderful job. This has been a long inquiry and it has involved a lot of investigations, not just of the pathology industry but of the whole medical profession. Peter Mason has concentrated a great deal of his time over the last two years on doing this. I congratulate him on his assistance in preparing what I believe is an excellent report which will greatly assist in curbing medical fraud and overservicing. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-The medical fraud and overservicing inquiry was a complicated and long inquiry, one in which all members of the Sectional Committee on Medical Fraud and Overservicing were pleased to participate. Over the last 24 hours considerable media interest has been generated by some aspects of this report. I think it will be a shame if the community does not recognise that the report has wider aspects which are highly significant for the future of medical services in Australia. It will be regrettable if the spectacular material overshadows the other although, knowing the ways of the world, I guess that that will occur. The members of the Committee really enjoyed this inquiry. I want to thank the Sectional Committee Chairman, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), for the way in which she handled this material. We settled for a report, recommendations and conclusions which are responsible and worth while and ones that we trust the Government will take good note of. I believe that the work generally is of a high quality. The systems of payment and the potential for overservicing and fraud in the pathology area are the particular topics to which the Committee paid attention. In the report there is a wealth of information in tables and charts which are released for the first time. They are worthy of study and of attention. Those tables and charts indicate that the level of pathology services in Australia is generally high. The job that is supposed to be done has been done. The accuracy of the work seems to be good. However, there are problems with some areas and the Committee acknowledges that. I refer the House in particular to the conclusions reached by the Committee. At page 57, the report states: The Committee concludes that: The design and administration of the Department of Health Approved Pathology Practitioner scheme is grossly deficient and requires immediate reform. On page 58, the Committee further concluded: Fee splitting of pathology services is encouraged by current legislative arrangements; these arrangements may foster overservicing and allow poor quality services to be rendered to patients unchecked. That is a highly significant conclusion. It further concludes: The majority of professional pathologists and those allied to the profession appear to welcome the introduction of a high quality and nationally consistent pathology accreditation programme like that proposed by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Professional bodies appear very concerned about the current state of the industry and wish to see a significant improvement in both medical practitioner attitudes and the Commonwealth's administration to ensure high standards of performance and to minimise opportunities for the provision of poor quality work. The Committee's recommendations are carefully thought through and practical, the most significant of which I believe is: The Approved Pathology Practitioner eligibility criteria in the Health Insurance Act be amended such that pathology services may not be rendered `for or on behalf of' an Approved Pathology Practitioner and that only natural persons can be considered for Approved Pathology Practitioner status and accreditation. That is the crux of the whole matter. I know that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and members opposite will differ from this view but I believe that it is clear that, in a system in which patients have no financial interest in what happens to the process of their medical care, one loses the key responsibilities that are sheeted home day to day to medical practitioners and pathologists. I guess that is the point on which members of the Committee differ. It is not something which we were charged to deal with; it is not a Committee responsibility to look at policy. I believe that the Medicare program and its failures are best illustrated by some of the difficulties that are now surfacing in services such as pathology services. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —by leave-I wish to preface my remarks by saying thank you to the Chairman of the Sectional Committee on Medical Fraud and Overservicing, the honourable member for Canberra, Mrs Kelly, and to the members of the secretariat of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts who assisted in the preparation of this report and whose work has been so good. I wish to take up just one aspect of the report. I refer to recommendation 41. When we were preparing the report and inquiring into pathology practice and the pathology industry in this country, there is no doubt that the Medicare information enabled us to see a clear picture of pathology practice. I remind the House that pathology fees have been on the medical benefits schedule for many years and that all pathologists have derived a very large part of their income from the public purse before and since the introduction of Medicare. The aspects of geographic concentration and of recent pathology practices have been dealt with by the previous two speakers. They are of considerable concern to the Committee and to the public at large. There is one way in which a certain check can be kept on any service and that is by the client who receives the service. One of the great difficulties with pathology services is that the client has no direct information on what services are actually being provided or what the services are intended to do. The pathologist works away from the patient, and the language in which the results are couched is obscure to most patients, which makes it impossible for them to determine whether that service should be provided. In recommendation 41, the Committee has recommended: The introduction of regulations requiring referring practitioners to itemise all pathology requests with Medicare Benefits Schedule benefits, together with an appropriate brief description of the pathology service(s), and to, by law, provide a copy to the patient before the tests are actually formally requested. That recommendation, if it were carried out, would give a patient an opportunity to discuss the nature of and necessity for the tests being requested and some expectation of results which had some connection with the original discussion. That would provide a very important control over some of the practices in pathology which are described in the report; in particular, it would lead to an end of the so-called sink testing in which blood samples go down the sink and the practitioner, of the sink testing variety, simply makes up some kind of report or reports that the sample proved to be normal. In controlling an enterprise which is so expensive, which accounts for a considerable amount of public money and which is concerned with the good health of people in this country, it is essential that the people concerned have an opportunity, before the tests are carried out, to discuss with their medical practitioner the necessity for and the precise nature of those tests to ensure that such practices as sink testing, over-testing and across the board testing for all kinds of conditions which are not indicated by any other symptom are not carried out. I commend the report to the House and to honourable members. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —by leave-As a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, and having been for a short time a member of the Sectional Committee on Medical Fraud and Overservicing, I wish to make some comments. Briefly, I wish to congratulate the members of that Sectional Committee and its staff for the very hard work over a period which has resulted in a detailed report which will be of assistance to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and to the Parliament. However, I wish to inject a note of caution on the tabling of this report. The report has more to do with the revealing of the cost and inefficiencies of pathology services than it has with revealing deliberate overservicing and fraud. The reasons for the difficulties in detailing the amount of overservicing and fraud will be obvious from a reading of either the Hansards of Committee meetings or this report. It is very difficult to quantify the amount of overservicing and fraud. I sat in on a number of Committee meetings. Every expert who appeared before us was asked to quantify the amount of overservicing and the amount of fraud. The answer from all of the experts was more or less the same; they were unable to give the amounts with any certainty. For that reason, I wish to warn honourable members and members of the media who, as the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) suggested, will seek to highlight the more sensational aspects of this report, not to draw too wide a bow. At the risk of stating the obvious, of course there are abuses by pathologists and perhaps by general practitioners, just as there are abuses in any human institution. But to paint the profession in any way with the same brush as one would paint those identified as abusers of the system is in my view totally irresponsible. It is the responsibility of the media not to fall too readily into that trap. I do not wish to take the matter any further other than to say that the committee has contributed in a very valuable way to the Department of Health and its Minister by monitoring the cost and the extent of over-servicing and fraud, but it does not in any way bring down a guilty verdict against the profession. Dr WATSON(Forde) —by leave-I would like to reiterate the comments made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Queensland has a couple of very large pathology laboritories and I have known a number of the members of those firms for quite some time. It is appropriate to say that very large pathology firms which have the highest professional expertise and maintain the highest professional standards receive a substantial amount of income from pathology testing. I have no doubt that the organisations in Queensland about which I am talking fall into that category. It should be understood that many of the problems associated with pathology testing exist currently because that testing is not restricted to pathologists. It is fair to say that some of the problems that have arisen are in organisations in which the individuals involved are more entrepreneurial than professional pathologists. I do not want to sound as if I am an advocate for the pathologists, but it seems to me that one of the things at which we have to look is whether or not the provision of pathology test services is carried out by members of the Royal College of Pathologists. Perhaps it would be easier for the Commonwealth to monitor and control pathology testing if its provision was limited to individuals who are qualified in the area of patholgy. I think it is worth repeating that one should not fall into the position of denigrating the excellent professional work of many pathologists simply because some individuals associated with that area may not adopt as high a professional standard as we would like. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Before the debate is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill 1985 will be debated concurrently with the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill 1985 and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill 1985. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.35) —My comments in relation to the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill, the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill will be brief. In presenting the 1985-86 Budget in August of this year, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated to the House the concern of the Government about the economic difficulties faced by many of our primary producers, having regard particularly to the extremely poor international commodity prices flowing from subsidised over-production from our major competitors. He went on to indicate that as a result of these difficulties the Government would introduce a number of important initiatives to assist the rural sector. From 1 November 1985 currently eligible primary producers will receive a full rebate of the excess on diesel fuel. This initiative encompasses the fishing industry. The rural sector, including the fishing industry, will be paying 2.4c a litre less for diesel fuel from the date I have previously mentioned. It is interesting to note that appropriation for the fishing industry for the 1985-86 financial year will increase by a mammoth 50 per cent to $21,867.00. Measures in the Budget included, as I have previously mentioned, the rebate on the diesel fuel excess at a total cost of some $5m to $6m, adjustment assistance of some $3m, a loan guarantee of some $5m and appropriation of $0.4m for fisheries management and $5.3m for fisheries research. Commonwealth funding for fisheries research will be a record in 1985-86 and will be directed at those projects underpinning the long term viability and development of the industry. I now turn specifically to the Bills presently before the House and refer initially to the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill. This Bill amends the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981 and has two purposes: Firstly, to provideclear legal authority for collecting the amounts specified in an agreement between Australia and a person other than a foreign government whereby Australia agrees to licence foreign boats for fishing in Australian fishing zones in consideration of payment of the amount to Australia; and secondly, to empower the Minister to declare by notice that foreign fishing boats operate by, for or on the instructions of an Australian for the benefit of Australia as a boat in respect of which the principal Act does not impose a levy. The second Bill to which I refer is the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill. This Bill amends the Fisheries Agreements Payments Act 1981 in parallel with the amendments proposed under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill. This Bill authorises the refusal of a licence for foreign boats unless the amounts specified in the agreement between Australia and a foreign government with respect to the operations of these boats in the Australian fishing zone have been paid to Australia. The purpose of the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill 1985 is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth and at the request of the Queensland Fish Management Authority, to guarantee the repayment of, and the payment of interest on, one or more loans made to the Queensland Fish Management Authority to provide initial funding for the northern prawn fishery voluntary adjustment scheme. The third Bill relates specifically to the Northern Prawn Fishery which encompasses waters off both the States of Queensland and Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It is a significant fishery and, as in the case of a number of Australia's major fisheries, it has been overexploited and economically overcapitalised, leading to social and financial instability within the fishery and allied industries. It is with this in mind that the Government has enhanced programs to redress this situation by developing measures to increase industry efficiency and assist in stock recovery. For some years the northern prawn fishery has been characterised by excess fishing capacity and low economic results and the adjustment scheme is a major component of the new management arrangements for the fishery. The main objective of the plan is to achieve a significant recovery from the depressed economic conditions which have affected the fisheries in recent years. The program has been devised with full consultation and importantly the full agreement of the industry. The setting up of a committee to implement the plan involving Commonwealth and State governments and the industry indicates the benefits that can flow from the co-operation of State and Federal governments with industry. Although production from the northern prawn fishery is valued at about $80m per annum, the presence of substantial excess fishing capacity has resulted in the fishery becoming unprofitable in the existing economic environment. The introduction of the scheme will allow fishermen wishing to leave the fishery to be compensated for the surrender of their rights within the fishery. To maximise the early impact of the voluntary adjustment scheme, arrangements are being made with a commercial lender to provide initial funding by one or more loans of which the Bill guarantees repayment. It is significant that the full expense involved in implementing the scheme will be met by the industry and the risk of the government having to honour the guarantee will be extremely small. As I indicated at the outset, the initiatives of the Federal Government in the 1985-86 Budget have been a great boost to the fishing industry generally. I commend the Government's decision to provide a grant of $3m a year for the three years 1985-86 to 1987-88 for adjustment assistance. Importantly, the appropriation of $3m in the 1985-86 grant is to go totally to the voluntary adjustment scheme for the Northern Prawn Fishery. Of course in the part of Australia that I represent there is also the East Coast Trawl Fishery and it is noteworthy that the product emanating from that fishery and the Northern Prawn Fishery contributed to Cairns being the largest fishing port in Australia in terms of revenue. It is a vital industry for the future development of far north Queensland and I welcome the initiatives taken by the Government and in particular by the caring Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Labor Government has taken a positive approach to the development of the industry in far north Queensland as a whole and particularly the Torres Strait Fishery. The appropriation of well in excess of $1m in the 1985-86 Budget for the further development of the Torres Strait Fishery is welcomed in that part of Australia. I have spoken in this place previously on the Torres Strait Fishery and the agreement reached between Australia and Papua New Guinea in relation to it. It is my belief that with controlled management and development it will become a major fishery within Australia and I welcome- I know that I speak on behalf of the Torres Strait Islands people-the continued interest and concern shown by the Australian Government in the management of that fishery. During the next three years the Federal Government will inject $2.7m into the development and management of the fishery. Under that agreement the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will then share costs. Recurrent costs will be met on an equal basis by both State and Federal governments and they will also share the replacement of capital items in future years. I know of the interest and concern shown by island leaders such as George Mye, who is Chairman of the Island Consultative Committee, and Nelson Billy, who is the Chairman of the Warraber Island Council. I have been going there for some three years and every time I sit under the wongi tree with Nelson Billy, the first matter he raises is the future management and development of the fisheries in the Torres Strait Islands. In fact all the Torres Strait Islands chairmen from the eastern group show a real interest in and concern for the controlled management and development of this fishery. It is an area that the people have fished for thousands of years and they do not want to see their fishing areas and fishing beds destroyed by over-capitalisation of the area. I refer also to other island leaders such as the chairman of the Yorke Islands community, Joey Moseby, who always speaks of the interest of the islanders in their fishing industry. I was very pleased that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry was able recently to go to the Yorke Islands and speak to the islanders about the industry generally. In conclusion, I mention two other island chairmen who have similar concerns about the industry in the islands. I speak here of all the islands but I have particularly mentioned the eastern group because that is where most of the trawlfishing in Torres Strait goes on. I refer of course to James Sallee, who is the chairman of the Murray Island community, and Murray Lui, the chairman of Coconut Island community. It is because of the attitude of the present Minister for Primary Industry and the Government that industries such as the fishing industry have in place proper and realistic management programs. These Bills will ensure that those management programs will continue for the benefit of the industry in the long term. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.45) —in reply-I would like to make a few comments before we complete the second reading debate on the Northern Prawn Fishery Voluntary Adjustment Scheme Loan Guarantee Bill, the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Agreements (Payments) Amendment Bill. The debate has been most constructive. These measures are not being opposed and many of the comments made indicate the close interest taken by various honourable members in Australia's fishing industries. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) takes a close interest in all fisheries matters and has quite a few notches in his belt in terms of dealing with the problems that have arisen for the northern prawn fishery. The northern prawn fishery adjoins the west side of Cape York Peninsula and there are something like 240 to 290 boats in that fishery. The east coast prawn fishery probably has around 500 boats working north and east of Cairns. In respect of the Torres Strait fishery, we are negotiating with the Queensland Government and the Papua New Guinea Government arrangements that are quite unique. We are dealing with another sovereign Government-Queensland-and then dealing with another totally different country, Papua New Guinea. We are working together there with peoples who have lived in that part of the world for a very long time and we are trying to preserve the fisheries for those people because fish are virtually the only resource that those islands have. As the honourable member commented, I was recently on the York Islands and I got a further understanding there of the situation. The Queensland Minister and I have authority over the Torres Strait protected zone and that is a splendid example of the Queensland Government working with the Commonwealth Government without any problems. We are both putting money in. Goodness gracious, the fishermen associated with the safe anchorage scheme and fuel prices all have cards with their name, photographs and a number on them and the Queensland Government has not taken any objection to that. That is why I am staggered when the Queensland Government cannot talk with the dreaded Commonwealth about the sugar industry. This loan guarantee is a perfect example of the Commonwealth and Queensland governments working together harmoniously in the interests of the people we jointly represent. It is a sterling example of what can be achieved when the nonsense of party politics does not intrude into what is a straightforward arrangement for the people we all represent. This Government has a good record on fisheries management and people have commented on the fisheries plans we are now putting into place for the northern prawn fishery, the Torres Strait fishery, the east coast and south east coast trawl fisheries, the southern bluefin tuna fishery and the shark and scallop fisheries. There were enormous problems in the negotiations and discussions on all these fisheries and the scallops fishery is the most recent example of great tension. All this has been caused mainly because of over-capitalisation and over-exploitation of the fisheries. We first have to learn the biology of a fishery and then work out management plans. Eventually we will get on to finance and some of the other aspects of administration on which the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) touched. The problem with the southern bluefin tuna industry was partially caused in earlier years when too many boats were allowed into the fishery. The really good thing to happen recently was that in July Cabinet agreed to the Commonwealth proceeding with the implementation of the fisheries element of the off-shore constitutional settlement. This will enable the Commonwealth to resume negotiations with the States with a view to implementing formal legal Commonwealth-State arrangements for managing particular fisheries under a single law and exercising executive functions under that law. In other words, we will clean all this up and we will be able to move on to the business of Commonwealth and State licences. I will touch on that in a moment. The northern prawn fishery is probably one of our best fisheries. It has a very high income but, as I have said, it is over-exploited. There are too many boats in it. There has been some misunderstanding about what this loan guarantee is about. It is just to guarantee the $5m which will be raised by the Queensland Fish Marketing Authority. It is the most competent body to raise that money. True, it took a year to get this scheme in place, but this is the way we are handling it. A voluntary levy is to be applied to the fishery. With the $5m loan guarantee and the voluntary levy we should be in a position to start removing effort from the fishery . The first tenders were recently called to get units of fishing effort out of that fishery. In response to the case put to us by the fishing industry on fuel costs, we were also able to put some $9m back into that industry for adjustment purposes-$3m a year for the northern fisheries in general. Comments have been made about the fact that we are now trying to extract from the industry some of the costs of management of these fisheries. We will make these fisheries very viable and profitable. When one sees people paying $3,000 a tonne to get entitlement to southern bluefin tuna and one talks about a management levy of $15 a tonne, one sees how much money is potentially in these fisheries once we get mangement plans in place. So it is with the northern prawn fishery-once fishing effort is removed, once people do not have to apply so much power, use so much fuel or put on so many nets, we will find that fishery will be in a very profitable situation. Under those circumstances it is reasonable enough that the fishery should pay back to the public some of the measures of assistance that the Government-or the public-is giving to it. There is a lot more money in this Budget for the fishing industry. I will not go through it in detail; other members on this side of the House have touched on that point. I would stress that some $5.3m has been allocated to fisheries research and another $0.4m to fisheries management. In addition there is the adjustment assistance of $3m which I have already mentioned. The rebate of the diesel fuel excise will give the industry something like $5m to $6m. So we are looking after these fisheries and doing what we can to help them. The matter of fuel costs is a very big issue and many people have touched on it. Everyone acknowledges the importance of fuel costs to the fishing industry and we note the magnitude of the fuel price rises that have occurred since 1 January this year. But these cost increases must be seen in perspective. The $19.9m estimated annual increase in fuel costs to fishing right across the board represents only 4.5 per cent of the industry's gross value of production. Most of this increase reflects movements in the exchange rate affecting the import parity price of crude oil. These movements in exchange rates can be expected to benefit the industry's revenues in Australian dollars. In mid-May 1985 the Australian dollar had depreciated by 23 per cent against the United States dollar and 16 per cent on a trade-weighted index basis since the floating of the Australian dollar in December 1983. Since 31 January 1985 the Australian dollar has depreciated by 14.6 per cent against the United States dollar and 15.7 per cent against the yen. According to the May 1985 Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy, the publication of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, this substantial depreciation was expected to result in significant increases in export prices received by the fishing industry and improve the position of the industry in competing against imports on the local market. It is alleged that Japanese buyers have partially discounted their prices to reflect the depreciation of the Australian dollar and I think that that is conceded. However, no evidence has been produced that recent price adjustments have involved any more than normal responses to changing demand and supply conditions. Even if Japanese buyers did attempt to adjust their prices to Australian costs, this cuts both ways and they could be expected to make upward adjustments for increases in costs, such as increased fuel costs. Even if allowance is made for some reduction in export prices and for other offsetting factors, such as possible forward exchange hedgings and repayments on borrowing denominated in foreign currencies, it seems unlikely that the resultant increase in revenues to the industry from the depreciation would be any where near as low as the 4.5 per cent of gross value of production represented by the increase in fuel costs. In short, there appears to be a substantial net gain to the industry from these combined effects of the depreciation and the fuel cost increases. Australia, along with the United States and Canada, has the lowest pricing structure for petroleum products in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries because of the relatively low level of excise on refined products. The introduction of a free market for crude oil which is currently being considered by the Government would be expected to place further downward pressure on fuel prices, particularly in northern Australia through increased opportunities for the import of the refined product. The Government has sent a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on the taxation of petroleum products. This is an appropriate forum for considering the non-rebatable excise on diesel fuel. I make those points to put this matter in some perspective. That is to say that with the increase in the fuel price as a result of the drop in the dollar there was very much an offsetting factor. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned the question of joint venture fishing in northern waters. I make this point again because it is always contested in the Northern Territory by some of the fishermen there. They claim that they are not consulted or that their industry is being affected. Both the joint ventures we have in the north were developed in accordance with existing policy which had been established in consultation with industry representatives. Far from discouraging the entry of Australian fishermen into previously unexploited fisheries or those only exploited by foreigners, the purpose of joint ventures is to promote such participation while at the same time meeting our obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention to make surplus fisheries resources avaiable to foreign fishermen. At no time have I been provided with evidence that the pelagic and demersal resources of the north were about to the exploited by Australian fishermen on a scale which would warrant the total exclusion of foreign fishing. Given these circumstances, there are two alternatives: Foreigners can be allowed access in return for payment of a fee directly into Commonwealth revenue; or they can be permitted access under joint ventures which require a range of benefits designed to facilitate Australian participation, such as replacement of foreign with Australian-owned vessels, purchase of fish from Australians and use of shore-based facilities. It is only since joint ventures have been introduced in the north that Australian fishermen have commenced to operate on any scale in the pelagic fishery in conjunction with one of the joint venture companies. If the benefits which a joint venture company has contracted to provide are not forthcoming, I have the power to refuse to re-issue licences or, ultimately, to cancel the agreement itself. I wish to respond to a few points which were raised quite responsibly by the honourable member for Gwydir. He asked why the Queensland Fish Management Authority, had been selected to administer the voluntary adjustment scheme rather than the Australian Fisheries Service. I touched on this briefly a moment ago. The Queensland Fish Management Authority will administer the borrowing of funds for which the Bill provides a Commonwealth guarantee. This is a convenient arrangement because there is no industry organisation with the necessary financial strength or legal status. If the Australian Fisheries Service were to become the borrower it would require statutory powers to do so. The Queensland Fish Management Authority already has appropriate statutory powers. When I took this issue to the Cabinet just over a year ago, it was decided that we would try to get the money off the Budget and go through some independent organisation. The Queensland Fish Management Authority seemed to be the most relevant body. The Queensland Government and the Fish Management Authority were both very co-operative in this matter because most of the fishermen in the north are based in Queensland. This is a loan guarantee Bill. The Government is not providing a $5m loan, it is merely guaranteeing loans borrowed from commercial sources and to be repaid by the industry by way of the levy. A voluntary levy is being collected as well, so this provides catalyst money or seed money, if I can put it that way. Meanwhile, we have the additional $3m which will go to the industry for adjustment and again, with all that money available we should be able to get effort out of that fishery and restore it very quickly to profitability. The honourable member for Gwydir also raised the question of foreign fishing access fees. The claim was made that there is a need to revise the purpose for which these foreign access fees are used. In other words, the money should be paid into a trust fund for the benefit of the industry and this would aid adjustment. I was enjoined to challenge the Treasury views about hypothecation, but I will not open up the debate with all that that implies. As a general rule all revenue goes into Consolidated Revenue and funds are appropriated by the budgetary process in accordance with policies and priorities. Considerable funds were allocated to the fishing industry this year, especially for adjustment assistance. I think we all know the arguments about hypothecation but when we are getting so much money from foreign joint ventures, this is a question that fishermen constantly ask. No Ministers seem to be able, not so much to win the argument as to overcome the rationality in all that is associated with hypothecation. But as the honourable member for Gwydir pointed out, the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has had some success in getting some funds earmarked. All Ministers use this sort of example as a means of bidding for more money in a very tight budgetary situation. The honourable member for Gwydir also referred to the financial impost on industry of the administrative burden created by the need to have Commonwealth and State licences. The decision to proceed with the fisheries element of the Off-shore Constitutional Settlement should, in time, settle most of this. The Commonwealth really only puts on one licence. It is a problem with multi-species fisheries, and some States have been regulation mad; but the aim of this Off-shore Constitutional Settlement is to rationalise the jurisdictional arrangements and the associated licensing problems by permitting the Commonwealth and the States to agree on the administration of a fishery under a single law. As we have overlapping fisheries due to species mix and we would need to have fracture zones between some fisheries-one cannot draw fences on the ocean-this is a very complex situation. Negotiations with the States are in progress, and the industry is being consulted. The Commonwealth Government removed the requirement that individual fishermen should be licensed; only master fishermen and boats are now licensed by the Commonwealth. I conclude on the matter of the borrowing agent and the whole question of of the Queensland authority acting as our agent. The State fisheries agencies themselves have undertaken day to day administration of Commonwealth fisheries requirements under a reimbursement program for the last 30 years. Any other arrangement would be a duplication of resources that would not be cost effective. So again we see the advantage of the intermeshing of the Off-shore Constitutional Settlement with this arrangement of the Commonwealth paying for management. The advantage in having the Queensland Fish Management Authority administer the borrowing of funds for the northern prawn fishery voluntary adjustment scheme is that the Authority already has appropriate statutory powers which the Australian Fisheries Service does not. Also, the QFMA is directly involved with the Commonwealth and relevant State agencies in the management of the northern prawn fishery and has a good understanding of the fishery's problems and the remedies being used to overcome them. In other words, my officials work very closely with the relevant officer in Queensland, Mr Dave Mitchell, who is very much au fait with the northern prawn fishery. Decisions about the administration of the northern prawn fishery voluntary adjustment scheme will be taken by me on the advice of the Committee referred to in the circulated explanatory memorandum on the Bill. These Bills represent more progress in the management of our fisheries. As I say, the prime aim of all this is to make quite sure that our fisheries return to a profitable state, that the biology of the fisheries is taken into account in management plans, and that we get the proper liaison and effective administration between the Commonwealth and the State governments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment. That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House condemns the Budget because- (1) it is only half a Budget which fails to outline any approach to the urgent problems of tax reform and tax relief; (2) it fails to remove the threat of new taxes on investment and jobs, such as a capital gains tax which will include death duties and gift taxes; (3) it condemns 750,000 Australians to higher marginal tax brackets during the year; (4) it fails to address the fundamental problems facing the Australian economy, particularly high inflation, the lack of international competitiveness and the need for further cuts in Government spending; (5) it fails to provide clear direction on the Government's approach to discounting wage indexation for the effects of depreciation of the dollar and so potentially destroys its employment benefits; (6) it fails to move towards the deregulation of labour markets required to give all Australians the chance for a job, and (7) it burdens Australia with the threat of continued high interest rates which hurt not only home- buyers but hit business investment and jobs. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(6.06) —In resuming the Budget debate after its interruption last night, I wish to reiterate the widespread concern in the community over the economic direction in which this Labor Government is leading us. No number of glib assurances, or tortured Public Service jargon from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), can disguise the economic problems facing Australia. Frankly, the Treasurer seems at times to be a wound up robot, with his Public Service jargon, his constant reliance on inconsistent, almost nonsensical terminology. The electorate is totally fed up with being told that the economy has never been in better shape, and that it has not experienced such growth and prosperity in many a long year. Does the Government think that the electorate is stupid? Does it think that people are fools? Nobody in the private sector believes that the rhetoric in the Treasurer's Budget Speech and his statements since the delivery of the Budget portray the truth about the state of affairs. I say to members of the Government: Get out of your Caucus and your committee meeting rooms and circulate amongst members of the community-not amongst those who receive the benefits of the country's wealth but amongst those who generate that wealth. We can all talk until the cows come home about how to distribute wealth and about how we list our priorities for spending. That is easy. But it is far more difficult and far more important to discuss how that wealth is to be created. I repeat the figures that I gave to the Parliment last night. The number of Australians who receive pensions or benefit payments or who are in the employ of the three tiers of government is now almost equal to the number employed in the private sector. That means that for every person in the private sector there is a government employee or a government beneficiary. It is not a matter of attacking those in receipt of government benefits or those in the employ of the Government. After all, everyone in this chamber is really a public servant. But therin lies a neat summary of our country's problems. Too few are involved in generating wealth. Therefore, this Government's major priority, as with any other government of any other ilk, must be, above all others, and to the extent that any government can do so, to ensure the profitability of the private sector. Frankly, whatever the Government's claims- and there has been a succession of Government speakers in this debate who would have us all believe that all is well in the rose garden-it is a fact that there is great dissatisfaction and increasing hardship amongst those involved in the private sector. People cannot get ahead. Every time a reasonable return on somebody's investment or a reasonable reward for initiative and hard work is apparent government costs and charges go up in conjunction with labour costs. How can anybody get ahead? Moreover, how can anybody get started in our community nowadays? Interest rates, the availability of finance, labour and government costs and charges are prohibitive. We are sowing the seeds of the destruction of the private sector in this country. A few years down the road the chickens will come home to roost. Does this Government really believe it can bring about fundamental changes in the taxation system which hit at incentive and risk taking not reducing the number of people involved in the private sector and thereby reduce the size of the cake which this Government is more concerned about distributing? Look at small businessmen, the self-employed and the primary producers. The increased farm costs, together with falling agricultural markets, have spelt disaster for primary producers. Costs such as those for fuel, chemicals, fertilisers, wages, interest rates and the effects of tariffs have combined to put farmers in this country in the category of poverty stricken producers. There is no other term for it. We are creating a new class of poverty stricken people who are now in an identifiable ghetto, the ghetto being the rural areas of this country. The great social and economic areas of this country, by a succession of government influences, are being reduced to areas of severe poverty and, I might add, social depression. If any member of the Government wants to contest that he is welcome to journey to parts of my electorate or the electorates of my National Party of Australia colleagues. We will bring home to the members of the Government the realities, not the high-sounding contorted statistics provided in this chamber by the Treasurer day in day out which nobody involved in business or self-employment has any belief in whatsoever. The major problems facing this country are, in my view: Interest rates, labour costs, government costs and charges which involve state and local government as well as the Federal Government-taxation and inflation. I add to that list our declining position in international trade. The end result, the bottom line, is that we will continue to have totally unacceptable levels of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, so long as we have a government which does not regard the stimulation and protection of the private sector as its number one priority. That cliche `priority one', which this Government is hanging its hat on to assist the young unemployed in this country, amounts to nothing unless the first priority is growth and thereby job opportunities in the private sector. At Question Time today the Treasurer dismissed the discussion of the topic of interest rates as being nothing more than a politically opportunistic attack by the Opposition. In reality interest rates are a tremendous burden on small businessmen, the self-employed and farmers. So long as this Treasurer dimisses the legitimate concerns of the Opposition on behalf of the community outside this protected chamber we will continue to see the burden increased rather than lessened. During Question Time today we had the extraordinary scene of a Treasurer more or less abdicating responsibility for the high level of interest rates in this country; a total abrogation of his and his Government's responsibility to ensure that the proper economic climate exists. Mr Cadman —Too remote from the real world. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Mitchell interjects, the Treasurer is too remote from the real world. Hence I invite the Treasurer or any other member of the Government to visit, with my colleagues, our electorates where day in and day out people come into our offices and detail their financial state and further, and of more interest to this chamber, detail the reasons why they are in an economically depressed position. There are a number of other matters which this Parliament should concern itself with other than interest rates, but before going on to those I wish to stress that the prime bank rate in Australia is presently hovering around the 17 per cent mark. Of course for loans of over $100,000 it hovers around the 20 per cent mark. The most probable explanation for these high interest rates is the amount of government expenditure. We have a government borrowing heavily in the market-place, thereby squeezing out private borrowings. Moreover, I do not think it can be questioned any longer that the Government, together with the Reserve Bank of Australia, through various complex monetary controls, is forcing up interest rates to ensure the value of the Australian dollar. Without such controls I have no doubt whatsoever that the value of the Australian dollar would fall dramatically below its present rate of 67c-odd in the United States dollar to, as startling as it may sound, 50c. That is the judgment of the international financial community-that our performance on any indicator, in comparison with the performance of our major trading partners, is woeful. It is even more woeful when compared with the performance of our near neighbours within the Asian-Pacific basin. Their rates of growth, inflation, interest rates, employment and unemployment put us to shame. That is something which every member of this Parliament should be concerned with. The matter of labour costs is one which members of the Opposition raise day-in day-out without fail. We will continue to do so until the message finally seeps through that this country is living beyond its means. It cannot afford a centralised wage fixing authority which automatically indexes wages without any regard whatsoever to productivity or to the capacity of industries to pay. We have deregulated the financial market to a large extent. Let us now deregulate the labour market. Special deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions are no substitute for deregulated market forces. Voluntary contracts will be the order of the day, however long this Treasurer seeks to delay that coming. The groundswell in the community and in the private sector and, I might add, within academia and the public sector to a very large extent, is such that this Government will be forced radically to change its policies. That is assuming that it changes its commitment to the ACTU before the next federal election because after that election there will certainly be a change of labour markets in this country. Government costs and charges are of concern to all of us but mostly in the Labor States. Charges for the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, rates, gas and fuel, the State Electricity Commission, land tax, stamp duty-all those matters which come within the province of the Cain Labor Government in Victoria-are at an unreasonable and unbelievably high level. I turn to the matter of taxation. If, following the assets test, anyone in this nation has any remnant of doubt about this Government's anti-capital, anti-individual bias, the introduction of a capital gains tax in late December will dispel it. There is no doubt that when a government brings in an assets test which exempts the family home, whatever its value, and yet takes into account broad acres, whether they are cultivated or not, in order to strip a poor pensioner of his pension, it will come as no surprise that the same principle will be enunciated in the forthcoming capital gains tax. In that tax to be brought down by the Treasurer the family home will once again be exempt from taxation. Profit gained on the sole family home will be exempt. The same millionaires in the suburbs of our major cities will be laughing all the way to the bank, just as they did after the introduction of the assets test, but the rural people and small businessmen will be crying their way to the poorhouse. The Opposition has proclaimed its determination to vote against a new capital gains tax and to repeal it on return to government. Let us see what those holier than thou Australian Democrats will do in the Senate. It comes down to what they will do now. They have always paraded in a sanctimonious fashion their commitment to the individual and the small businessman. They are on trial and no one should misunderstand the gravity of their situation. Finally, I turn to the matter of inflation. As if the crushing burdens of interest rates, labour costs, government costs and charges and a declining share of world trade were not sufficient, we have a projected rate of inflation of at least 8 per cent for the next financial year. If we compare that rate to the rates of our major trading partners, we see that we are further disadvantaged in our relationship with them. The end result is that the commitment to reducing unemployment and to giving our young unemployed a future in our great country is significantly reduced because of the blinkered, ideological, economic decisions taken by this Government in conjunction with the ACTU. Mr KENT(Hotham)(6.23) —In discussing the 1985 Budget in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), I commence my remarks with a quote from one of the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald of 21 August. The very first paragraph sums up the Budget as follows: The Hawke Government has pitched heavily for economic responsibility in a Budget which includes a large cut in the deficit and emphasis on wage restraint, but no income tax cuts. My Press release issued on the night of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated in part: This is a Budget that good conservatives can only dream of. Of course, my comment came easily as I had watched the faces of the Opposition members across the chamber. The faces of that aimless bunch across the way were rather grim. I could read the thoughts on their faces and I later heard them expressing those thoughts to each other in the corridors. They were saying to each other: `When we were in government why didn't we have the guts to do it?'. I for one welcome this Budget. It is a responsible Budget, and, if anything, it is too responsible. It should be a watershed in our Government's responses to neo-conservative pressures of cutting expenses and programs. From now on we should baldly reject demands for smaller government. Those demands mean smaller social welfare expenditure, less services to the Australian people as a whole, less for our youth and less investment in our future. The neo-conservative demand for cutting expenses on services to the community comes from representatives of big mining companies, big multinationals, and is echoed by small business. These demands come from business quarters which do not contribute their fair share to our tax revenue. It is a gross impertinence from the Hugh Morgans and their like to tell us how to spend government revenue when they do so much to evade it, and contribute so little to it. It is time that this Government told those business rascals that only those who contribute a fair share in their taxes will have the privilege of saying how it shall be distributed. The revenue collected from the ordinary Australian taxpayer should be used for his future welfare and not for subsidies to the rich tax evaders in the cities or in the country. I remind my colleagues and the Government that in future our duty should be to serve directly our natural constituency-the ordinary wage and salary earners of Australia. We have done enough for big business. We have restored the economy of this country which was in ruins when we took over from that inept conservative bunch opposite. We have lifted the profits of businesses and companies to a higher level than it was under the seven years of the Fraser-Howard Government. Now it is time that we gave back a fair share of revenue to those who honestly contributed to it-the people of Australia. Unless we start in earnest to serve our constituency-the people who put us in government-we will lose their support and our self respect. This brings me to a matter to which I would like to devote the rest of my time and to draw to the attention of both sides of the House and the Australian public at large. I want to focus my remarks on the proposed introduction of identity cards. The proposal to introduce an identification card system and computerised data bank on individuals is a sinister attack on our civil liberties by the bureaucracy. Even though the proposal was publicly put by our mild mannered Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) it first appeared in some obscure Treasury papers, nudging the Treasurer to use it as a means to mop up the undeclared interest on small savings of Australian wage and salary earners. It was of no concern to the small minds of the bureaucracy that, in the process of mopping up the petty amounts from the average Aussies who are reluctant to pay taxes on inflation, by the use of ID cards, our traditional liberties and our way of life which respects the privacy of the individual may be jeopardised. Since Federation, except for a short time during the war we have got on well without ID cards. Australia is a vast continent with a small population, and our identities can be easily established without the introduction of internal passports. During the two centuries of our existence on this continent we have developed a great respect for the individual. In most other countries of the world, including developed Western countries, the individual, unless he or she belongs to the elite, is treated as part of the mob by the bureaucracy and the officials. Unlike the rest of the world, probably as a result of our pioneering era, we in Australia still treat the individual with respect. I first came across the problem of individual identification at about the age of seven. I was born and brought up in Yugoslavia. My father was born in Yugoslavia and so was my grandfather and great-grandfather. When King Alexander of Yugoslavia and the French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Bartoux, were assasinated inMarseilles in 1934 the situation in Yugoslavia became suddenly tense. Many people of various minorities were expelled from the country. I recall the story in my family that my father was summoned by the police chief of our small country town where we lived, and asked to prove his identity and citizenship. My father told the chief, whom he had known for many years, that he had no intention of providing any proof and if the chief doubted his identity or citizenship, he was the cop and it was his job to prove otherwise. This story from my childhood indicates to me that our individual privacy and our liberties depend on our willingness to defend them. Later, my distaste of being branded and numbered grew even more when, during the war, ID cards helped the Germans to round up the Jews and, after the war, when some of my friends who survived the Holocaust returned from Dachau and Auschwitz and showed me their numbers tattooed on their forearms. This is only an example of the extremes identification can be taken to, and of the extremes to which human freedom and dignity can be trampled on by the authorities. I mention this only as an extreme. I am not suggesting for a moment that such a use of an identification card would ever be contemplated by the Australian bureaucracy. Since then, I travelled around half the world to settle in a country where one can bring up one's family in peace and freedom. I settled here 31 years ago with my wife and son, who was then three years old. Since then I have learned not only to love this country and its people, but to love the Australian tradition of freedom, civil liberties and respect for the individual and his or her right to privacy. I vowed then to do my utmost to defend our liberties and our freedoms. When I mentioned the brutal extremes of the nazi era, I did so only as an example to show to what dehumanising extremes identification and branding of people can be taken. Not for one moment did I wish to suggest that such a use of ID cards would ever be contemplated in Australia. However, the uses of such a universal identification system tend to proliferate. Social security numbers were first introduced in the United States of America in 1935. Since then the use of a person's social security number as both a means of identification and as a method of collecting data is now much greater than could ever have been envisaged in 1935. The social security number is now used when opening bank accounts and this is then reported to the Internal Revenue Service, the Taxation Office. The number is now widely used to check tax records and for other purposes. There is no doubt that once the ID card is introduced it can be used for any purpose, legitimate or sinister, depending on the government of the day or, what is worse, on the bureaucracy, which already advocates its introduction for the sake of efficiency. I ask the house: Efficiency for what? It is efficiency in keeping a record on an individual, on every individual, a record of his bank accounts, a record on his movements and probably tomorrow a record on his private life. We have seen how limited approvals for phone tapping have proliferated. People's private phone conversations are being illegally recorded. Yet that was not the intention of the legislation! Because of the fear that public opinion may turn against the introduction of the card, the Government was advised to keep a low profile on this issue. A number or an ID card as such may not mean much. It may be neither good nor bad, but its use and potential abuse by Big Brother is what makes it dangerous and sinister. But even to be a number for official purposes is having a dehumanising effect. If that is extended by the requirement to carry one's number, and produce one's card on request by officials, it becomes the first stage in the destruction of the liberty of the individual. I had the experience of seeing how, even in democratic countries such as Israel and Italy, anyone who packs a pistol can board a bus or train and require passengers to produce their identity cards. I expect that I am not the only member of this House who has come across such incidents when travelling overseas. I, for one, do not accept the assurances of officialdom that we will not be required to carry our cards with us and I warn the people that, once such a card system is introduced, the occasions for its use will proliferate. Every Government institution will find it necessary for the card to be produced and when it is produced the computer data will be updated. Any safeguards written into the legislation will not be worth the ink used, as the bureaucrats will argue that efficiency comes first, civil liberties and privacy second. Even now before its introduction the ID card is hailed as the universal panacea. According to its supporters it will cure all illnesses of our society from acquired immune deficiency syndrome to illegal immigration. As I mentioned, originally the ID cards were proposed by the Treasury to mop up the small savings of ordinary people who have a couple of thousand dollars tucked away for a rainy day in saving deposits. But since then it has come to be believed by many that the card will stop organised crime, social security fraud, illegal immigration, medifraud and many other unsavoury practices that we believe are rife in our community. All the ills of our society are no worse than the ills in those countries where ID cards operate. If anything, we are better off, as far as crime is concerned, than many other countries with which we compare ourselves. To illustrate this, I feel much safer walking at night in Melbourne than in New York. As for using an identification system to prevent illegal immigration, let me say that there are over five million illegal immigrants in the US, while we estimate the number in Australia to be 50,000. Would anyone suggest that if we introduce ID cards we will catch and deport 50,000 people who may have settled here without permission in the last 20 years? To prevent future arrivals remaining here illegally we do not need ID cards. We need instead a computerised visa system which will enable immigration authorities to keep a check on overstayed visitors. The Department is of the opinion that the existence of ID cards might exacerbate the degree of social security fraud. Forged cards will unlock the whole system and in a way forgeries will legalise and perpetuate the fraud. The existence of ID cards will not assist the Department of Social Security in its major problem of people supplying false information about their income levels and domestic circumstances, nor will ID cards help to catch petty thieves who steal pension cheques from letter-boxes. There are other methods of reducing social security fraud-for example, direct crediting of payments to the bank accounts of recipients. But of course there is still the contention that ID cards will catch tax evaders. Let me deal with that matter. While it may force people to declare the interest received on their small savings it certainly will not stop bottom of the harbour evasions, dry Slutzkin or wet Slutzkin or any other big evasion schemes that cost the community not millions, but billions, of dollars. ID cards will not make big business pay its fair share of taxes, nor will it make small business declare profits. There are hardly any corner shops in the breadth of this country whose owners pay their fair share of taxes. They seem to live from losses, and live very well indeed. The introduction of ID cards will not force the owners of small businesses to pay taxes; it will not make an iota of difference to our tax collection from big and small businesses. It will not stop medifraud; it also will not stop solicitors helping themselves to their clients' money. Only a few months ago it was repoted that $16m was missing from lawyers trust funds in New South Wales alone. Will ID cards stop this dishonesty? Will they stop organised crime? Of course they will not. They will instead introduce a new, profitable line in to the stock of organised crime-the manufacture and sale of false ID cards. The 1,000 new bureaucrats who would be recruited to administer the ID cards would be much more gainfully employed if they were trained as tax investigators so that they could check the false figures of those businesses that show constant losses in their tax figures. The fact is that the ID card is not directed against organised crime, big tax evaders or sophisticated fraud. According to an article in the National Times of 5 September it is directed against pensioners who work part time to supplement their meagre pension, the students on the tertiary education assistance scheme who work the odd day in a child care centre, a media organisation or a nursing home under a false name, and others who are trying to earn a few dollars more than is the permitted income under the rules of the Department of Social Security. While the card will do little to rectify the ills of our society, it will do enormous harm to our way of life and our civil liberties. As Arthur Horner put it is his article in the Melbourne Age of 20 August 1985: And, let's face it, when in a democracy you need a bit of card to say not that you can drive a car or are credit worthy but simply that you exist, and have a number to prove it, it's time to get a bit concerned. While such a card could be very handy for those of us who don't know who we are, the rest of us should take a good hard look at it-before it happens. Accordingly, I call on the Treasurer to think, and think again, before it happens. I remind the House of what the seventeenth century philosopher Descartes said. He said: Ego cogito, ergo sum. Translated, that means: I think, therefore I am. Instead, the Treasurer seems to be saying: `I have a plastic card, therefore I exist.' Of course, he may not need to think if bureaucracy does that for him. I consider that the introduction of ID cards into Australia is the first stage in the destruction of the liberty of the individual and I reject it. I know that I will not be alone. I am sure that the thinking people of our country will reject the card with the same vehemence they showed when they rejected conscription. I have faith in our youth. I know that thinking Australians will reject the introduction of ID cards, and so will this House. However, if ever they are introduced I will publicly burn mine. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.42) —This third Keating Budget has failed the Australian people essentially on two grounds. Firstly, it is little more than a scissors and paste job based upon dubious economic assumptions. It tells us something of the Government's plans for expenditure. It tells us nothing of the Government's plans for revenue or taxation. In regard to the latter matter, in particular, we have yet to wait to see the outcome of the July National Taxation Summit, the results of which I hope the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will bring to this chamber later this month. Secondly, the Budget clearly lacks an underlying strategy for the growth of our industries, improvement in productivity and the willingness to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit to take the risks and give it a go. I find this Budget to be a pathetic response to the obvious social and economic problems facing Australia today. The Hawke socialist Government has made no attempt to introduce major structural reforms, nor does it hold out any real hope for the long term economic growth of this country, placed as it is within the fastest growing region of the world. Not one near neighbour to our north-all of which are members of the Association of South East Asian Nations-has a rate of economic growth of less than 5 or 6 per cent over recent years. By comparison, even under this so-called illustrious Government, Australia's record remains pathetic. The Australian economy needed, above all, major structural reform. Those who believe, as presumably do members of the socialist Left at least, that socialist governments are the great reformers should note the unwillingness of this Government to confront the hard decisions which must be taken if the Australian people are to continue to enjoy high living standards. These can be achieved only by developing an internationally competitive economy. The alternative, which is plain for all to see, is that Australia will continue to be plagued by booms and busts and regular recessions, as we have seen in the past, together with high unemployment, serious and rising public sector debt and a balance of trade which clearly points to the continuing economic decline of this nation. That is the structure. That is the economic environment in which this Budget was put together for the financial year 1985-86. Various comments have been made by my colleagues as to the fact that the Budget represents nothing more than a half-baked Budget and so forth. As I said, we know little about the tax implications of these programs because they were not contained in the Budget. We have yet to see the outcome of the White Paper and what elements of option A will become part of the taxation base of this economy. While the Government may look upon the results of recent opinion polls as evidence of public support for the Budget, I strongly suggest that that may well not be the situation come the end of this month when people are made to realise that all is not silver nor are all linings of Budgets meant to be golden. In addition, we have the problem of the attitude of this Government to wages policy. The Treasurer proclaimed in this house and elsewhere his ability to stand up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He was going to deliver wage discounting. There was even a comment to that effect in his Budget Speech to this House. However, under closer examination by the Opposition it became more than abundantly clear that the Treasurer was less than totally committed to the comments that were contained in his Budget Speech. He failed to spell out in the Budget an unambiguous commitment that the Government would do all in its power to achieve full discounting for the devaluation. He failed to make any reference in the Budget to the ACTU's 4 per cent productivity case or the push for superannuation payments. In the last few hours we have learnt that the ACTU has now endorsed the Government's strategy, which, in effect, means that at the current national wage case hearing no attempt will be made to reduce the impact of the devaluation in terms of wages and that the full consumer price index flow on will take place during this period. While some statements have been made that things will change at the next such Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing, the simple realities are that every time this Government goes down the road of full compensation for the CPI it is steadily but surely whittling away whatever economic advantages it claimed would come to this nation as a result of the greatest devaluation that has taken place in Australia's contemporary history. In the last 48 hours we have seen yet again the world's view and verdict of the value of the Australian dollar. We see that inexorable decline. The future of this nation is in the Government's hands, not in ours. Its economic strength is in the Government's hands. The value of the Australian dollar and the capacity of the Australian people to maintain their standards of living are very closely interwoven. As I said initially, it is on those grounds above all else that this Budget will be seen for what it is-a charade, a weak document based on dubious economic statistics and little more than hope. Let us look at some of the disturbing realities which it contains. In 1985-86 inflation will be at least 8 per cent, almost double that of our major trading partners and one of the highest inflation rates in the entire range of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As a result of the decision taken in the last few days by the ACTU, it is not unreasonable to suggest that it will not be 8 per cent inflation this financial year, but much closer to 10 per cent by 1986. What about the average real increase in Government spending under the Hawke Government, something about which we have heard so much as a result of the glorious May economic statement, when we were told that overall cuts had been made to the value of $1.6 billion? Anybody who has been in government or even in opposition in recent years knows that one does not have to be a profound expert to cut back one's initial estimates of expenditure. That was the essence of what this Government did last May. It is interesting to point out that the rate of spending under the Hawke Government, even on this year's Budget, has increased by 4.9 per cent. That represents more than double the rate of average expenditure over the seven Budgets of the Fraser years. Let us see what the Government has to offer in the area of taxation. Because no changes were contained in the Budget-as I said, we live in hope in relation to what may come later this month-750,000 pay as you earn taxpayers, who are the backbone of the tax system of this nation, will move into higher tax brackets this year. In fact, half a million Australian taxpayers will find themselves paying 46c in the dollar or more. We have seen the overseas debt rise from $1,571m in June 1983 to $3,326m in June 1985, that is, a rise from 14.6 per cent to 25.1 per cent of gross domestic product. The public sector component has risen from $864 to $1,670 per head of population. These statistics speak for themselves. They point to the inexorable decline of the Australian economy and, with it, the standard of living of the Australian people if we proceed down that road any longer. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table of Government outlays which demonstrates this point. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GOVERNMENTS ARE SPENDING MUCH MORE In the last ten years total government spending has increased almost fivefold-from $16,147 million to $77,428 million. In real terms government spending increased by 70 per cent in the ten years (far outstripping the economy which grew by 28 per cent). Government Outlays * $m 1953-54... 2,472 1954-55... 2,681 1955-56... 2,944 1956-57... 3,084 1957-58... 3,278 1958-59... 3,560 1959-60... 3,872 1960-61... 4,195 1961-62... 4,545 1962-63... 4,799 1963-64... 5,321 1964-65... 6,001 1965-66... 6,668 1966-67... 7,359 1967-68... 8,105 1968-69... 8,625 1969-70... 9,685 1970-71... 10,487 1971-72... 11,952 1972-73... 12,312 1973-74... 16,147 1974-75... 22,622 1975-76... 27,521 1976-77... 31,634 1977-78... 35,680 1978-79... 38,567 1979-80... 43,220 1980-81... 49,763 1981-82... 57,318 1982-83... 67,931 1983-84... 77,428 * Commonwealth, State and Local governments together with public authorities. Government outlays have risen sharply-from 31.6 per cent of GDP in 1973/74 to 41.8 per cent in 1983/84. In the current year the share of government will rise to over 42 per cent. All levels of government have contributed to this upsurge in government spending. Mr CONNOLLY —I thank the House. Australia's external debt servicing obligations, expressed as a ratio of interest payments and contractually due capital repayments to exports of goods and services, rose from 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1979-80 to 33.6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1984-85. In addition, Australia's public sector borrowing requirement is still 5.6 per cent of gross domestic product, which represents a rate of growth 50 per cent higher than that of the United States of America. We all know how much we read in the international Press about concerns for the level of gross domestic debt in the United States. I think it is worth while just reminding ourselves that, per head of population, citizens of this nation are substantially worse off than the citizens of the United States. In fact, Australia today is experiencing the highest real interest rates for over 50 years. We have noted in the last two days how at Question Time, when members of the Opposition have asked numerous questions of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about interest rates, they have ducked and weaved and done whatever they possibly can to avoid answering the questions. Whatever promises may have been made in the past, the inexorable fact of the matter is that rates of interest today are catastrophic in terms of their impact upon investment, job creation industries, the housing sector and those thousands of young Australians who have been brought up to believe that they have a right to appropriate accomodation, just as that same right was given to their parents. I think it is worth noting the recently released annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It commented on the situation by the end of 1984-85: Most interest rates had risen substantially, with many rates at historically high levels both absolutely and relative to the rate of inflation. The Bank's judgment is that policy at the end of the year is appropriately firm and that this policy will need to continue. The Reserve Bank is saying that, in both real and nominal interest terms, rates are high and will remain so for some time. One of the realities of this situation is that, when we are carrying the high rates of international debt we are in Australia, it is essential that we be able to attract sufficient investment just to cover the interest bills which have already accrued on previous loans and, I might add, especially those loans incurred by the Whitlam Government back in the early to mid-1970s. That is the heritage that we are passing on to our children. It has to be borne by the next generation when we have left this place and, in due course, go on to retirement. We will see then whether this nation will be able to afford to pay the pensions which the present generation seems to take for granted. Contrary to the Treasurer's assertion that the tax take for pay as you earn taxpayers is bud- geted to increase by 13.3 per cent, in reality, indirect taxes on cigarettes, beer, spirits, petrol and so forth will rise twice this year-in February and again in August-in accordance with the movements in the consumer price index as a result of decisions made in the first Hawke Budget. It has always amazed me how commentators on the Budget tend to imagine that, because there is not some specific mention of this each year, somehow or other the Government has suddenly found itself in a most Christian mood. The simple realities are that it is locked into CPI increases-a very profound and intelligent act as it was-as a means of increasing taxation. Let me get back to the question of the deficit. We are told that there is a significant reduction of the deficit to $4.9 billion but the deficit outcome will be higher; it will be $5.3 billion. If wages are not discounted for the effects of devaluation, the cumulative deficit in the first three Keating Budgets will total some $20 billion. As I said earlier, that represents more than the seven Fraser Budgets of the past. In terms of Budget outlays, the Government has made much of its small increase in spending but the Budget Papers have shown us that outlays for 1985-86 are expected to increase to 29.8 per cent of gross domestic product. That represents the third highest level of Budget outlays in Australia's history, beaten only by the first two Hawke Budgets and equalled only by the last big spending Whitlam Budget. The average real increase in the first three Hawke Budgets was 4.9 per cent, which again was more than twice the average real increase in the seven Fraser Budgets. Similarly, we were told about the $1.25 billion cut in outlays from the Forward Estimates but that has been shown for what it is. In fact, since the Forward Estimates $716m worth of extra spending has been incurred and the cuts which may have been made last May have resulted in a net cut of only $764m. However, 1986-87, the first full year of the changes, will result in an increase in spending of $169m. Surely that contrasts more than markedly with the alleged cuts offered by the Prime Minister and his vaunted Treasurer back in the so-called May mini-Budget. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth's public debt interest, which does not include States or statutory authorities, will be a massive $6,724 billion in 1985-86-an increase of over $1 billion over last year, or almost 19 per cent. If we relate that to the actual population it means that it is costing every taxpayer $20 per week to pay interest on the Government's national debt. I think the Australian people ought to consider those figures very carefully indeed because they mean that, since devaluation, the cost in interest alone has gone up some $5 billion per year. We could bear that if this nation was able to trade more and if our balance of trade was more to our favour. But the sad fact is that, despite devaluation, the balance of trade has not altered significantly in our favour. Mr Robert Brown —It will. Mr CONNOLLY —We certainly hope it will. The honourable member for Charlton and I are at one on that point but that is precisely why the Government is wrong in going down the road of refusing to devalue wage increases for the impact of devaluation on the economy overall. If we are to open up new markets it is as clear as the eyes on the honourable member's face that we must be in a position to compete. If our cost structures are not in a competitive mode those markets will remain closed to us. Irrespective of what programs of subsidies the Government has, and irrespective of what levels of support and maintenance it may give industry, the bottom line is that the market-place will buy the product of the best quality and the greatest choice at the lowest price. It is time that the Australian people and this Labor Government in particular were prepared to live with that simple realisation. If they fail to do so they will be inexorably leading the people of this nation into a situation where we cannot possibly persist with our current standards of living and we will indeed become the poor nation of Asia. For that reason the Opposition believes that the Australian economy needs major structural reform. For that reason we believe a number of major elements must be incorporated in a national strategy. They must have clear objectives. We should be directing our efforts towards greater economic flexibility and deregulation of the economy to give the private sector more expansion and more opportunities to get out and create market opportunities and jobs. We must reduce government involvement. For example, over one-third of the staff of the Department of Primary Industry are involved in meat inspection. In addition, we have the State meat inspection services and in some States local government is involved in the same activity as well. Clearly, there is a massive need for restruc- turing and a devolution of the responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States. We cannot control a cost factor in governmental terms while we have more than one level of government actively involved in the same area of policy. In addition, we have to reduce government involvement overall. We have to reward effort and excellence in all facets of Australian endeavour. We have to give full employment the status it deserves. As politicians we should not be ashamed to imagine that the Australian people deserve less than that. Nobody suggests that the task is easy or that the journey will be short. Let us have the courage to say to the Australian people: `You do have the right to a job provided you are also prepared to make the sacrifices which are in the national interest'. It is on that point above all that this Government has failed. Once again in this Budget the Government has not been prepared to grasp the nettle. It has not been prepared to use it as a basis for its economic strategy. It has not been prepared to say to the Australian people: `That is our light on the hill. These are difficult decisions but they have been made and we ask you to support us'. The Government has had its chance. This is its third Budget. For the third time the opportunity to tackle the important elements of long term development for this nation, of giving Australians and future generations a role, a sense of belonging and a sense of national achievement was in its hands. As an Australian I say, with the greatest concern, that yet again this Government has failed the Australian people. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(7.01) —Several months ago a very great educator, who lived in my electorate, died. He was actually the oldest Christian Brother in the world, Brother Creighton. The point of the story is that many of his old students from St Patrick's College, Strathfield, where he spent his teaching career, went to his funeral, as did I and many others. But, being old boys, of the school they went back to the college for a cup of tea. One of them, who is a constituent of mine, said afterwards that he was amazed at the improvements in his old school. What had been a quite run-down institution in those days, 15, 20 or more years ago, is now a splendid educational institution. That made me think that this is true. The school, without any Commonwealth funding, has been able to build a number of additions to its facilities. There is no municipal swimming pool in the area in which the school is located and it has been able to construct a swimming pool by raising money through the parents and friends, and by fund raising generally at the school. It is a very big school of over 1,000 boys. The point made to me by my constituent made me think that, over the years of Federal funding of the government and non-government sector since the Whitlam initiatives, there have been amazing improvements in capital works at schools. Of course, this brings me to the appropriation for the funding of schools in our nation. I do not intend to speak entirely on capital works for schools but, in the state system, many of the schools have improved. Unfortunately at Homebush Boys High School and Burwood Primary School this was assisted by arsonists as the schools had major fires. But other state schools have improved greatly. I claimed in this House that Homebush West Primary School was, from a fabric point of view, the worst school in Australia. The quality of the teaching was first class but the school was a run-down old domestic science school. On a recent visit to that school I was amazed to find that the demountables had all been carpeted, all the old buildings had been refurbished and there was an absolute new spirit in the school. The staff felt that at last someone was thinking about them. They thanked me for what I did, although I am sure that that would have happened anyway in the fullness of time. Mr Robert Brown —No, it was your representation. Mr MAHER —I thank the honourable member for Charlton for his enthusiasm and his point. Substantial capital works are also going on at Five Dock Public School and Strathfield South High School. In the non-government sector, in my area of Five Dock, I have been able to acquire the first major capital grant to redevelop a primary non-government school at All Hallows Primary School, Five Dock, which also received much publicity on Nationwide and other television programs because of its run-down nature. In fact it reached the stage where the two-storey building, in an old church with a hall above it, had to be closed and was deemed unsafe by engineers. All the children were put into demountable classrooms. There were about 450 students at the school. The state seems still to have forgotten Enfield Primary School and the systemic Catholic system in the archdiocese of Sydney seems to have forgotten St Dominic's at Flemington. I am sure that in the fullness of time something will happen there. Tonight I wish to touch on the quality of education in schools. It is one thing for someone to go back to a school after a funeral and say: `My old school looks wonderful. It has a gymnasium now, a swimming pool and facilities that were not dreamed of'. But what is the quality of education? Has it improved since the days of Kim Beazley, who went around and found the Catholic systemic schools using old desks thrown out by the state system, and found three children sitting at desks made for two children in some of the parish schools in Melbourne and Sydney? We know that the class sizes have fallen and that teachers are better trained in that in-service programs and courses for teachers have improved. But what about the real quality of education? There has been, quite fortuitously, a report, recently released-in April-entitled `Quality of education in Australia'. I praise the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, for releasing this report. It disappoints me only slightly in that it was hard for that Review Committee to tackle the subject of schools which are substantially comprised of children from families in which English is a second language. In my electorate in Sydney, which is a metropolitan seat, in many of the systemic schools, even in the private schools and in all the state schools, perhaps an overwhelming majority of children come from families in which English is not spoken at home or in which there are no English magazines or books. This is a difficult problem, but neither the State system nor the Catholic system allows for classes for children who at home have nothing in English to which to refer, that is, no English language encyclopaedias or newspapers. I was disappointed to hear a pupil tell me the other day that in her class in Year 7 in a systemic high school no one watches the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television programs. That disappointed me greatly because we pour a significant amount of money into the ABC. The children watch Bandstand on a Saturday afternoon. I do not blame them for not watching the National because it is on at the wrong time, but it is a pity that no one watches the ABC. Surely part of the purpose of all the funding for the ABC is for its programs of an educational nature. It has wonderful current affairs programs and first class general entertainment programs. It disappointed me greatly that this adjunct of education is just not used in the cities. Perhaps they watch Channel 0-28; I hope they do. But that does not help boys and girls in junior secondary schools who are trying to master the English language. Unless they can do so, they cannot go on to tertiary education; they cannot qualify for entrance to a university or teachers college. This worries me greatly. The report on the quality of education refers to other reports and other research. But I feel that there are areas into which there should be more research. It is common in all of our capital cities that a vast majority of the children are from families in which English is really out of place. Even in the primary schools I find that, with the influx of Indo-Chinese, the children from families in which English books or English language newspapers would be found represent a tiny minority. That does not mean that the Indo-Chinese children or the children from other ethnic groups are not doing well. They are doing splendidly. At Homebush Boys High School they are forcing the pace, but essentially in mathematics, chemistry, physics and science-not in English. That is what worries me greatly. The report did lack some in-depth research and development into the ethnic schools throughout our capital cities. But it is difficult for any report, sweeping over the whole of the nation and the quality of education, to touch on what is happening in all the cities and all the suburbs. The committee tried to deal with Aboriginal schools. Those schools are quite distinct. I have seen them in the Kimberleys and areas of the Northern Territory. In my electorate I have only three systemic schools run by the Catholic system in New South Wales, although one of them has gone private. The schools are essentially ethnic schools and each of them finishes at Year 10. The teachers have told me that the children who leave school at Year 10, aged 15, particularly the girls, do not all end up on the dole. Ethnic families put the girls into some job somewhere, even if they are getting only a pittance. The boys school did not have as good a record as the girls school. Of 95 boys who left the Christian Brothers School at Burwood last year about 15 are on the dole. That would be less than the national average of school leavers on the dole, but the number of girls on the dole is fewer than that, so I was quite pleased. What upsets the school principals is that many bright pupils who could do better things are working in dead-end jobs that are far below their capacity or potential. The jobs are not at all stimulating. For example, a father might work for a tile company and the daughter might be given a position there. If anything, there is a social stigma in the daughter being at home and receiving the dole. I give great praise to the ethnic families who do not want their children to get the dole but to be occupied gainfully and learning at least some skill. It disappoints me greatly that some young people, who leave school with great enthusiasm and all the training and ideas they have, end up not on the dole but in jobs which are far less than they could aspire to and hope for. This is particularly so with children from Italian, Greek and Lebanese families. I raise this tonight because we are dealing with the appropriations for the Department of Education and the Commonwealth Schools Commission and this report has been released, which I think is of great significance. I cast my mind back to the 1972 election campaign when Kim Beazley Sr, came to the area I represent. He gave a great thrust to education and brought education to the fore in our community and made it a big election issue, which it continued to be until last year or the year before when many of the difficulties and funding problems finally were resolved. At that time the situation almost brought Kim Beasley, the great educationist, to tears. I was with him when he visited the little Catholic Holy Innocents' School at Croydon. He was appalled. We went into a couple of the cottages which the school had brought in 1972 and found groups of children being taught in rooms that had been small bedrooms. Some of the groups were withdrawal groups for English as a second language. Kim Beazley was almost overwhelmed at the time he visited this school. I went back to this school 10 to 12 years later and found the facilities much improved. There was substantial funding of that school under the Whitlam Administration and a whole new wing was built. Of the two cottages where classes were conducted, one was pulled down and another was turned into a library. Library funding is another issue. There is so little funding for libraries of schools which have a big enrolment of ethnic children who have no access to any English language books, magazines or newspapers. In 1972 Kim Beazley also visited Haberfield, which is now in the electorate of Sydney. He tried to visit the All Hallows Primary School at Five Dock, which was very run down. Although the sister in charge of the school agreed to allow him in, the parish priest administrator at the time refused to allow him to enter the school. Despite all of that, times have changed and that administrator has gone and the present parish priest greatly welcomed and roundly acknowledged the $400,000 grant from the Federal Government to rebuild the parish school at Five Dock. The questions of education, funding for education and the appropriation for education are very basic to our future and the future of our country. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(7.15) —Having received the call last night to speak in the adjournment debate just before the House adjourned at 11 p.m., I was only able to make what must have been one of the shortest speeches ever; it was about 15 seconds in duration. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to continue my address tonight on the question of Labor's bureaucracy at work. It is apparent, through practical experience, that the public is not getting the service for which it pays and to which it is entitled. The approach of many departments dealing directly with the public in areas often considered sensitive leaves a great deal to be desired. I wish to place before the House two examples that portray the real need for a streamlined, smaller, more efficient Public Service. My main argument is that, in the area of government, small government is good government. My first example concerns a constituent who had become a victim of the current Labor induced escalating unemployment situation. Quite naturally, he applied for the unemployment benefit to alleviate short term hardship. My constituent visited his nearest office of the Department of Social Security to carry out this task and, after consulting with a staff member, he believed he would receive his first payment in due course. However, on the day the first cheque was due, the Department informed him that a mistake had been made and there was no record of his application. The call to my office, understandably, was one of anger and frustation. At this stage it may be appropriate to detail some of my constituent's family background. He is a young married man with a small child who was then some 12 to 18 weeks old. The cheque was needed desperately, not for rent, as he realised he could not possibly meet this, but for food. The Department was particularly unsympathetic. Not only did it appear to be in no great hurry to establish the cause of its error but also it continually shuffled the responsibility for dealing with the case. Staff refused to give their names and this did not help at all. Subsequent telephone calls were delayed while it was established who exactly in the Department was dealing with the situation. Eventually the file miraculously appeared but, alas, more information was needed. Allegedly my constituent had failed to supply the correct details. Why then was this requirement not advised to my constituent previously? In such a critical situation, why did the Department delay telling my constituent what the problem was and how did the file `temporarily' disappear? This example is symptomatic of the attitude of many bureaucratic government departments-departments that appear not to give the public even momentary consideration. My second example of such bungling bureaucracy concerns the total destruction of a young man's chosen career. My constituent, in an effort to pursue a more worthwhile career, decided to undergo tests to enter the Australian Army. He underwent and passed all the stipulated tests set down for entry. His call-up date was announced and he resigned from his job in preparation. My constituent at this point had met the full requirements that the Department wanted-every requirement for entry into the Service. Medical and other assorted procedures had been carried out with satisfactory results. His proud mother travelled to the Army depot to be present at her son's reception into the Army. However, just three-quarters of an hour before being sworn in the young man was taken before a civilian doctor who found that he had a health problem that prevented his entry into the Army. This was not an obscure or rare problem, but a curvature of the spine which probably would not affect him at all during his working life. The Army, although originally noting that he had one leg slightly longer than the other, had failed to diagnose correctly his full medical condition which, incidentally, I am informed was completely irrelavent to the discharge of his Army duties. Perhaps a quote from my constituent can best convey the explanation offered by the Army: They made a mistake at the first medical. What a disgrace! What a scandal! What utter disregard for my constituent's position! A situation such as this should not have been allowed to take place. Not only did my constituent become unemployed but also he was considerably out of pocket due to moneys spent in preparation for his enlistment. In view of such occurrences, who can blame the unemployed youth of today for their bitterness? Not only was this young man unemployed but also he was embittered and disillusioned with the Government and the Public Service sector. The Public Service is there for a reason. It exists, as the name suggests, to provide a service for members of the public. Its monumental growth unfortunately has not resulted in greater efficiency. It has been a complete disaster. The public's natural suspicion of `red tape' will continue to grow if Labor cannot create a basic humane approach to the outrageous situations I have outlined. The bureaucracy needs to be trimmed and cut down to size. It needs to shed its excess kilos to give it some hope of rehabilitation in the public eye. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(7.20) —I want to refer to a meeting held recently in Kurri Kurri in my electorate. It was held on Wednesday 4 September and was attended by about 500 retired mine workers. The meeting was precipitated by an instruction given to retired mine workers requiring them to complete the income tax instalment declaration form. Many of those people in the Retired Miners Association are widows of former mine workers and the requirement that these elderly people fill out this form caused them considerable anguish and concern. Recently in Parliament the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) raised this matter in a very effective way. He made out a strong case for minimising the pressure of bureaucratic requirements on retired or elderly people. It was that situation involving these forms which precipitated this meeting. Of course the meeting responded to those circumstances. I want to refer to the three decisions made unanimously at the meeting. The first one reads: This meeting calls upon the responsible government authorities to recognise that the repeated requirements for aged and infirm people causes a great deal of anxiety. We request our parliamentary representatives to raise this issue inside Parliament and in representations to the appropriate Ministers with the aim of minimising bureaucratic regulation of the lives of retired citizens. Also we regard as invidious the situation of the elderly and infirm with the privileged position of those with wealthy means who do not pay as much tax as citizens of minimum incomes. The second resolution, also carried unanimously, says: We point to several anomalies affecting the living standards of retired persons which make them the most heavily taxed citizens in the Commonwealth. Those circumstances arise from the effects of social security income and assets tests and taxation requirements. It should be self-evident that non-indexation of income test and the taxation spouse's rebate and pensioners' tax rebate operate to maximise the Government's clawback from pensioners' incomes. The assets test which supposedly was brought down to eliminate wealthy claimants from social security and war veterans' entitlement is indexed. Commencing at $70,000 for single persons and $100,000 for marrieds it has now been advanced by indexation. Thus a couple with $105,000 assets would have lost $10 a week pension, with indexation that $10 has been restored. However a pensioner under the income test who also loses $10 a week from pension has not had any of that amount restored. This is invidious to persons on minimal incomes. We also call upon our parliamentary representatives to publicly press for the rectification of this anomaly and for indexation of taxation spouses and pensioners' rebates. I interpose to say that I hope that that is one of the matters given consideration by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the taxation statement which he will soon deliver in this Parliament. The third resolution says: We support the attempt by the Australian Pensioners Federation to have the tax free threshold of $4,595 substantially increased and indexed. We require this to be included in the deputation to take place with the Treasurer Mr Keating the Miners Federation, the State Council of Retired Mineworkers and also the Northern District Retired Mineworkers and local MPs. I want also to express my appreciation to Mr E. Withers, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation at the Newcastle Taxation Office, for the sensitive, responsive and helpful way in which he has responded to these issues. He provided two officers to attend that meeting and for many of those retired mine workers their advice and counselling was of great value. It certainly helped to ease the pressure and concern they were experiencing as a result of the bureaucratic requirement that they make out that return. I also want to thank the leaders and the executive of those retired mine workers associations in my area for the dedication and commitment they bring to their responsibilities and for the leadership they provide for all of those retired mine workers with whom they worked in the past and for whom they feel a continuing responsibility and commitment. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(7.26) —I speak tonight in support of the handicapped and elderly people of the city of Goulburn. At present renovations are being carried out at the post office in Goulburn. Those renovations are costing the Australian taxpayer in excess of half a million dollars. They are well under way and, indeed, will improve the post office in Goulburn quite substantially. The post office was constructed in the late 1800s and is of great aesthetic value to the main business area. However, despite it taking some years to prepare adequate designs and facilities for the renovations of the post office, there appears to be no ramp access for elderly or handicapped people. Like most other cities, the city of Goulburn has its fair share of elderly and handicapped people. Those people will be denied access to the Goulburn post office because the people who designed the renovations did not make any allowance whatsoever for a ramp to be constructed. As a result of representations from Mr David McPherson, himself a handicapped person, I have contacted both the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and also the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is responsible for the ownership of the Goulburn post office. I asked them whether they were able, at this late stage, to incorporate into the renovations a ramp to give access for the elderly and handicapped people of Goulburn. My response from those two Ministers came from the Minister for Communications, who informed me that he has been advised by officers of the post office that a ramp cannot be built because it would contravene the heritage aspects of the post office. I believe that a ramp could be built for the handicapped and elderly people of Goulburn which would suit the needs of both groups concerned with the post office-that is, the groups who are concerned about the heritage aspect and the handicapped and elderly people of Goulburn. Tonight in this chamber I call upon the Minister for Communications to act on this matter. I will be in contact with him again. I hope he will take heed of my advice. I ask him to act in the interests of those people of Goulburn who do not have access to the post office at present. If access is not provided via a ramp to the Goulburn post office handicapped and elderly people will have to travel an extra three and a half kilometres to an outlying region of Goulburn at Bradfordville to obtain access to a post office. Quite obviously, there is a need for these people to have access. I believe that this Government should treat post offices as public facilities and not public monuments. I am sure that the Government, and the Minister in particular, will agree with me that the handicapped and elderly people deserve access to the post office at Goulburn, as does any other member of the community. Mr GEAR(Canning)(7.29) —I direct the attention of honourable members to an advertisement which appeared on page 7 of the West Australian of 9 September. The advertisement was designed to entice people to invest money in an organisation known as the Australian Scholarship Trust. These were the emotive words used in the advertisement: How will your young children be employed in the year two thousand? or will they be employed at all? It went on to extol the virtues of the Trust, asking parents of children under 10 years of age to protect their future by investing funds now which will be returned at a later stage and which will provide money to enable them to receive a specialist education. It indicated that in this way parents would avoid their children joining the ranks of the unemployed when they have finished their secondary education. Many honourable members will no doubt be asking themselves why I am raising the issue of this particular advertisement. The reason will become plain. In 1983 concerned constituents contacted me after they had been approached by representatives of the Australian Scholarship Trust. I do not question the veracity or otherwise of that Trust or the associated Independant Provident Society of Victoria. However, I do question their marketing techniques which I regard as aggressive, questionable, misleading and emotive. The trust's representatives contact people whose names have been given to them by other clients. I believe that they offer the inducement of a free T-shirt or some other equally worthwhile prize if a person provides the names of 10 contacts who can be followed up. If a person is contacted after being nominated by a friend or neighbour, it has been the practice for the Trust's representative not to leave a contact number where he or she can be reached. Instead, such representatives say that it would be easier for the Trust to contact the potential clients and they suggest that a counsellor will make contact with them. In fact, the advertisement I mentioned was the first time that I had seen a contact address displayed publicly and when I return to Perth I will investigate 245 Churchill Avenue, Subiaco, to find out what sort of address it is and whether people can actually speak to anyone from the Trust if they visit it. Having made contact with a prospective client, the representatives proceed with a well-orchestrated sales pitch which make parents feel that they are in some way lacking in their role if they do not commit themselves to paying part of their family allowance into the Trust over a number of years so that they can receive a scholarship to assist with tertiary education for their children. There is no guarantee as to the amount of the scholarship. That the Trust's methods are aggressive is borne out by investigation undertaken by the Consumer Affairs Bureau in Perth in 1983. At that time the Trust used promotional material bearing photographs of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and extracts from some of their speeches, the implication being that the Ministers endorsed the product. They did not. In fact, the first that Susan Ryan knew of it was when she visited my electorate and it was brought to our attention by a constituent. This person was one who had been approached and who had signed up for the Trust, but had had second thoughts. Using the cooling off period provisions, my constituent had withdrawn from the agreement and had asked the Trust for a refund of his initial payment. He was, however, having difficulties obtaining a refund of this money. I was able to bring pressure to bear on the company concerned and my constituent's money was refunded. At that time I put out a Press release which was printed in one of the local papers in my electorate-the Comment News, a very good member of an excellent group of community newspapers. Subsequently I recieved a very aggressive phone call from a representative of the Trust objecting to my publicising what I felt were unfair selling practices. I made no apologies then, and I make none now. It concerns me that this organisation is again touting for business in such an emotive and, I believe, dubious manner. I can only repeat my warnings of two years ago: People should approach any such Trust with extreme caution. This view is supported by the Director of the Consumer Affairs Bureau in Western Australia, Mr Dick Fletcher, who was quoted in a recent article in Comment News as follows: If anyone is approached to join an educational trust scheme I would strongly advise them to look at all schemes, not just the one making the approach. I fully endorse Mr Fletcher's sentiments and ask other honourable members to be alert to the aggressive marketing tactics of the Trust about which I have been speaking. The scheme being offered is nothing more than an investment marketing strategy and potential clients would be better advised to consult a bank manager or investment advisor who could no doubt offer a better way of investing money. A particularly odious selling technique is to induce potential clients to invest their family allowance in the scheme when this was never the intention of the allowance in the first place. Tertiary education is free in Australia and this removes the need for a scheme of this kind. In conclusion, I would again strongly advise potential clients to investigate this dubious scheme thoroughly and examine alternative ways of investing their money. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(7.35) —Tonight I wish to refute some of the ridiculous economic statements made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the House today about the cost of fuel to farmers. Kerin, the swivel-chair farmer, has been stating all day that, because of devaluation, the price of fuel has not risen. I inform the Labor Government that devaluation has nowhere near offset the enormous increase in fuel costs to farmers and other people in the community. This year the price of wheat has gone up by only $1.30 a tonne and, of course, the price of sugar is disastrously low. No one could argue that sugar growers in this country have had any relief from devaluation. Ten years ago, the wholesale price of fuel was 11.94 cents a litre. It is now 51.84 cents a litre, and has increased 434 per cent in that period-the past year it has risen 43 per cent. Ten years ago distillate cost 12.79 cents a litre. Tomorrow it will be 51.33 cents a litre. Tomorrow there will actually be a slight decrease in the price of petrol of 1.63 cents a litre, due to various adjustments that take place. Crude oil excise has also risen dramatically under the Hawke socialist Government. In 1983-84 it was $3.6 billion. In the current Budget estimate it is $4.4 billion. The farmers comprise the hardest hit sector. Mr Hand —Oh, cut it out; not again. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right, Gerry, and you know it. The farmers are the hardest hit sector in the community when it comes to fuel prices and taxes. Last year farmers paid $372 million net fuel tax to Treasury. This year it is estimated that the so-called world Treasurer (Mr Keating) has put up to $438 million taxes on farmers. That is what the farmers are paying. There are 170,000 hard-working primary producers in Australia, and on average they pay $2,600 in fuel taxes per farm. That is to be compared to each Australian household, which pays only $870 in fuel tax. One can see that farmers are being discriminated against. They are being asked to pay by this Labor socialist Government three times more in fuel taxes. How can the Minister for Primary Industry argue that as the result of devaluation farmers have not been affected by rapidly increasing fuel prices? Farmers use 10 per cent of all diesel and petrol consumed in Australia. Since the mini-Budget, when the fuel price subsidy scheme was abolished by the Australian Labor Party, primary producers in many areas have had to cop an increase of 4 cents a litre on fuel. Farmers are now using 10,000 litres of fuel per farm each year, which is five times more than is used in the ordinary Australian household. I ask the present Government to see whether it can do something to reduce the cost of fuel taxes to the farmers of Australia. The National Party of Australia has an excellent policy on fuel and we will continue to look at freeing up the oil market. I believe in the current trend towards privatisation-I direct my remarks to our side of the House in particular-and the first industry that should be de-socialised is the crude oil industry. The $4.4 billion excise should be taken out of the fuel industry and given back to the rightful owners, the crude oil producers. The Government should pick up the taxes from the people as they consume fuel, in sales taxes and so on. We must free up and privatise some of these industries. I shall be arguing and fighting hard with the Treasurer, the shadow Treasurer and with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for a freeing up of fuel prices and a withdrawal of excise taxes. If that can be done, we can bring about some reduction in costs. The National Party when it is returned to office at the next election will reintroduce the fuel freight subsidy scheme. The fishing industry-and legislation on that subject was dealt with in the House today-will be exempt from the excise levy it now pays. It is ridiculous that fishermen have to pay this excise. I thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(7.39) —Today's Australia has been built by settlers from all over the world. Our way of life, our rich culture and, indeed, our sound economic base are due in no small part to the contributions of people born in other countries who have made this country their home. It is no wonder that people want to settle in this country with all its opportunities. But there are also people who wish to exploit that desire for their own greed, and who cause potential immigrants and their families a lot of pain and anguish-not to mention the money they rip off their clients and the people who are harassed and intimidated on the way through. This brings me to the purpose of my speech tonight, which is to call for tighter controls on the practices and code of conduct of immigration agents. I am glad to hear that a government party committee is looking into this matter. I specifically draw the attention of the House to one particular individual who has deliberately flouted even the most basic code of decent behaviour pertaining to agents assisting migrants into this country. That person is James Ghassan Rouda, born sometime between 1937 and 1940-depending on which official form that he has completed one wishes to choose. Mr Rouda has earned himself an unenviable reputation as a bully, a man prone to abusive, aggressive behaviour, and a man who has a history of misrepresenting facts when referring matters to members of parliament. That is one of my main concerns and why I raise this matter tonight. An undischarged bankrupt since 1969, Mr Rouda has, since then, registered as a director of at least one company, which places him in breach of the Companies Act. I preface my remarks on this aspect of Mr Rouda's activities by saying that for his dubious services Mr Rouda charges far in excess of the prescribed fee, which puts him in breach of section 50 (4) of the Migration Act-yet another notch to his criminal belt. Since 1968, the first year that he commenced acting as an immigration agent, I am told that complaints have been lodged to both the Department of Immigration and the police about Rouda. Has he also breached the Bankruptcy Act by failing to surrender his passport? I wonder whether he has handed that in. That is not to mention his straight criminal diversions, which include convictions for unlawful assault, indecent language and making false statements. It is his actions in relation to the acquisition of residency for his hapless clients which I find particularly bad. These complaints centre on the passing of worthless cheques, possible exploitation of Lebanese applicants for migrant entry, and an unsound financial record involving a series of County Court judgments being made against him. His declared bankruptcy the following year hardly comes as a surprise. This did not, however, stop Rouda in his tracks. He emerged the following year in Beirut running the Kangaroo Real Estate and Investment Co., which boasted in Arabic newspapers that, for a fee, Rouda could arrange migration to Australia. The Australian Embassy in Beirut received complaints that fees had been paid to Rouda without the promises being fulfilled. I personally know of eight cases in which Rouda has extracted money from people-sometimes up to $2,000-in return for the promise of permanent resident status in Australia. This puts parliamentarians in an impossible situation. This person comes into our office, hands us a file, and says: `I want you to act for a friend of mine'. He then leaves the office and charges individuals $2,000 and implies that he pays or bribes parliamentarians or officers of departments for carrying out that service. Rouda's modus operandi includes intimidation and harassment of immigration officials. I am sure that that statement can be checked. In one instance in which he fell out with his clients, there were threatening and abusive phone calls which included the disgusting threat to bomb a person's car or to set up a person by planting drugs in his car. This poor excuse for a human being should not be able by law to act as an immigration agent. The loopholes which allow these deplorable types of people to play on the vulnerability of intending settlers should be well and truly shut tight. At present the provisions of the Migration Act which cover immigration agents are wide open to abuse by people such as this, and those people who act on behalf of visitors who seek to change status to that of permanent residents are not covered under the Migration Act at all. People such as Mr Rouda cause frictions in our society that we can all do without. I repeat: Rouda places people such as ourselves, who act on behalf of other people in good faith, under a tremendous threat. We are open to all sorts of charges when in fact we are acting in a very innocent way. Our society can well do without Mr Rouda and people like him. Effective control of the activities of migration agents will ensure our freedom from such individuals. I urge the Government to take action against people such as Rouda, because there are many like him. If honourable members want me to name other such people in other cities, I can do that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(7.44) —I wish tonight to endeavour to reawaken the Australian conscious. There was a time in this country when we were very proud indeed to buy an article labelled `Australian made'. I suspect that in recent times we have got away from that rather rugged outlook of being Australians and being proud of that. I want to comment on several matters to emphasise the point I am making and to indicate that it is about time that we as Australians started to sing the praise of our country. I want to talk about certain things that have happened recently. Last Tuesday night in Brisbane, at the Lyric Theatre, which is part of the delightfully built and exquisitely turned-out performing Arts complex-a great tribute to the Government and people of Queensland- Mr Hand —And the workers. Mr McVEIGH —The workers played a part in building it. I acknowledge that because they were Australian tradesmen. My wife and I had the privilege of being present at the opening night of a performance by the Bolshoi Ballet. Of course, that was a rich and rewarding experience. But I state publicly that the Bolshoi Ballet is not as good as the Australian Ballet. It is true that the members of the Bolshoi Ballet were precise in their movements and executed every step with automatic precision, but to me it seemed as though their hearts were not in their dancing. That is not a criticism of a ballet company which is recognised world wide. But when I have the privilege of being part and parcel of an audience at a performance of the Australian Ballet, I have a feeling of exhilaration, delight and refreshment at watching true artists at work. I think it is about time that we in Australia started to let people know that we have ballet dancers, choreographers, directors and others involved in the various artistic fields who are world class. Recently, in that game which is recognised as being a maker of men, an Australian side played rugby union against the Home Countries. It is wonderful to realise that the Australian team was victorious in every encounter. Those of us who love beauty and the flow of a great sport will remember forever the pushover try scored by the Australian eight against the Welsh eight-widely recognised as the greatest exponents of rugby rucking and mauling in the world. Implicit in those victories overseas and in the great victories achieved in Australia has been the performance of the Australian front row. In particular, I pay tribute tonight to Andy McIntyre. I am pleased that the scribes from Sydney have finally woken up to the fact that the Australian Wallabies have been so successful in recent years because the front row forwards, comprising Andy McIntyre, Rodriguez, McBain and Lawton, have been able to hold their own when the going gets tough. When the torches are put to their bellies they do not take a backward step. The scribes are now saying that the best rugby union player in Australia is Andy McIntyre. He was unknown and unsung, but he is in there when the going is tough. I am proud to inform the Parliament that his father is a member of my electorate committee. Andy McIntyre is a tribute to his parents and to the Darling Downs. The third point that I raise concerns another issue which emphasises that if something is labelled Australian made we should be proud of it and acknowledge that we are the best in the world. Let others follow us, secure in the knowledge that if they can at least come near us, their attainment is almost approaching perfection because we are perfection. I refer to the racehorse Strawberry Road, which is now recognised in the world as being a top-class racehorse. Mr Robert Brown —The best. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member says, he is the best. It has been proved internationally. This horse is not like some other horses in Australia which have won $1m by racing on Australian tracks. This horse raced on tracks overseas and beat the others on their own tracks. I am delighted that the honourable member shares my enthusiasm. It is interesting to note that the real reason why that horse has been successful is that when he was being mouded and trained-again, unknown and unsung-he was in the tender care of a Mr Bougoure from Brisbane. It is only incidental that he is a product of a Darling Downs family. He is homegrown, and learnt his art in the local area. Those were the points that I wanted to raise tonight. I implore everyone not to worry too much about how much the bicentennial celebrations will cost us in 1988, but to recognise the fact that we are top-class people and the label `Australian made' is a good one. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I do not know whether some of the terms used in the middle part of the honourable member's speech were unparliamentary. Perhaps that is because I am from Victoria. The honourable member might explain them to me later. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.50) —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Centre in Springvale, which was announced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) recently. It is not a pleasure for me to criticise my Government's decision. However, I am of the opinion that the closure will harm the long term settlement prospects of migrants arriving in this country. When announcing the closure the Minister said: The era of big, institutionalised migrant centres is over. He went on to say that the centre will be closed and after a couple of years it will be refurbished and reopened if an experiment elsewhere proves satisfactory. There are so many ifs in the statement that I believe that if the centre is closed now it will never been reopened. The closure is set for 30 October and the occupants will be shifted into the Maribyrnong Midway Migrant Centre. The Midway hostel is situated in the depressed western area of Melbourne and will be the only remaining hostel in Victoria. Not only will the current occupants of Enterprise be herded into the western suburbs but all future arrivals will be directed to that area. It is a well-known fact-I know it from my own experience-that most migrants will settle in the area in which they first arrived. This is mainly because of the insecurity of new arrivals. If the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs directs them into the only hostel in the State they will settle in the area a few square miles around it. When I arrived as a migrant to this country I did not go into a hostel but into a family situation; yet even today, 31 years later, I live only a couple of miles from the place where we first settled. So I ask the Minister to take this fact into account and to envisage what will happen to the western suburbs of Melbourne, already heavily populated by migrants and generally over populated altogether. In those areas there are 20 houses to an acre instead of four to an acre such as in Springvale and the surrounding suburbs. We do not want to create Birmingham here. The Minister and his Department should take heed of what happens in other countries and places where migrants are herded together. The western suburbs of Melbourne are already depressed and, if we direct all future migrants there, it will be bad for those suburbs, it will be bad for the new arrivals and it will have future disastrous social consequences for our whole community. Instead of closing hostels we should be opening more so that migrants are given the opportunity to settle into an average suburban environment, to spread amongst the rest of the populaton instead of being herded into giant migrant ghettos, without adequate services and adequate opportunity to settle into an Australian way of life. I hope that the Government and the Minister will take note of my remarks and reverse the decision. The decision to close the hostel has been made by the bureaucracy without consultation with the local population or ethnic groups. It is a typical decision of an unthinking bureaucracy wanting to save money at present and not thinking how much this decision will cost us in future. I say again: Look at Birmingham. It is not only I who am alarmed because of the inane decision of the Department; so are all the councillors for the city of Springvale. They resolved to write to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and also to call a public protest meeting against the closure. I have already received sheets of petitions signed by the people in the area who are concerned about it. Finally, 62 employees of the hostel sent me a letter which they had signed-practically every employee who is facing the sack. In their petition they stated: We the staff feel the closure has been forthcoming without any consideration whatsoever to us. We also feel the decision to keep Midway centre running is a disastrous mistake. The western suburbs are already extensively populated . . . The Enterprise Centre is the best kept centre in Victoria if not Australia. It is also the newest with its gardens, play areas and recreation youth centre, with many modern facilities. The staff of Enterprise have always taken pride in maintaining this Centre and to close it would be criminal. In view of the widespread dissatisfaction in the area I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.55) —I say to the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) that blaming the bureaucracy is perhaps the easy way out if one is a member of the Government at the time. The system in this country is that ministerial responsibility pertains. If that hostel is being closed it is most appropriate to say that the Labor Government is closing it. There is no blaming some distant bureaucrat and hoping that people will be hoodwinked. It is the honourable member's Government which has made that decision. It may be a right decision-I do not know-but one cannot hide from the reality that it is a decision of the honourable member's Party and his Government. Mr Ewen Cameron —He's severely embarrassed the Minister. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Minister is not even here; he has fled. The matter I raise this evening is that of integrity. The honourable member for Hotham mentioned that the councillors of Springvale will write to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They should save the 33c postage because it is a waste of time. I will give an example to the House so that history will record it. On 22 April-only a handful of months ago-the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) asked: I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recently conducted Morgan gallop poll, which shows that by far the greater percentage of Australians do not favour a change in the design of the Australian flag, will he give an assurance that there will not be any change at all to our national flag? On that day the Prime Minister answered: We intend to be in government for a very long time but I am not presumptuous enough to answer for eternity. The Government does not have this item on the agenda and I do not see it emerging on the agenda. That was on 22 April. Yet in July the Department of Education and Youth Affairs a department which is directly responsible to the Prime Minister, gave the Ausflag group $3,000 to fund its postage to write to all schools in Australia inviting them to participate- Mr Scott —So what's wrong with that? Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is the Government's integrity. The honourable member does not even understand integrity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Moreton will address the Chair. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I am endeavouring to make is that the Prime Minister told the Parliament on 22 April that a change in the design of the Australian flag was not on the agenda and that he was not presumptuous enough to answer for eternity. The definition of `eternity' for the Prime Minister is obviously no more than three months or he would not have used that word. The people of Australia have every reason to doubt anything that Robert James Lee Hawke says. He stood in the Parliament in April and said: `We are not even looking at it'. Yet in July he funded a campaign to change the flag. The decision must have been made before the announcement. It was probably in the pipeline when he said that in the Parliament. He is a man without integrity. I notice that the former Minister for Defence, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), is at the table. I ask him why his Party is so determined to change all the symbols of this nation. The Minister had to step in against public outcry when the Government tried to remove, I think, the Queen's Shoot, which was a display- Mr Hawker —The Queen's Medal. Mr DONALD CAMERON —For the Queen's Medal. His action was a display of absolute pettiness. The Victoria Cross-a medal of honour for valour-was something else which the Labor Government was going to stamp out because in its mind it represented the United Kingdom. When it comes to the Australian flag, 70 per cent of Australia's population says: `Leave it alone'. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) asked: `What is wrong with changing it?'. What is wrong with changing it? For heaven's sake, let democracy have a say. The vast majority of Australians are happy with the flag without the Prime Minister resorting to underhand methods to fund changes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 11 September 1985: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1985- No. 5-Quarterly survey of Australian portfolio and other investment abroad. No. 6-Survey of superannuation funds. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics Proposal for disclosure of information-1985- No. 4-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Department of Primary Industry (Bureau of Agricultural Economics).