Friday, 13 September 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on 10 September of Mr Alexander Andrew Buchanan, a former member of this House for the Division of McMillan from 1955 to 1972. I inform the House of the death on 25 August of Mr Arthur Albert Chresby, a former member of this House for the Division of Griffith from 1958 to 1961. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Buchanan and Mr Chresby, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —by leave-At the outset of this resumed debate on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1985, I foreshadow an amendment to clause 9 dealing with proscribed countries. Following the introduction of this Bill in the House, I became aware of concern in some quarters that the provisions in clause 9 provide the Minister for Trade with wide powers other than in respect of South Africa. Accordingly, the Government has reconsidered these provisions and has recast them to limit their application specifically to South Africa. I trust that the revised clause will allay any fears which might have existed on this matter. I have arranged for the foreshadowed amendment to be circulated. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.04) —In speaking to the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1985, may I say how much the Opposition appreciates that trade is a very important part of Australia's economy and of how Australia performs. This particular Bill alters the course set by previous legislation but still provides the incentives necessary for our manufacturers and exporters to penetrate overseas markets. This a very desirable Bill from the point of view of continuing that course. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will be aware of the many representations made to him concerning alterations and amendments proposed. Some of these have flowed over to the Opposition, but we believe that it is for the Government to take those proposed amendments on board. After the May 1985 mini-Budget-the Government statement on expenditure savings-the Opposition firmly set out its position. We have continually said that there have to be expenditure cuts over a wide range of activities in Australia in order to bring the economy into order. While we do not necessarily agree with the thrust of what the Government is doing in making cuts in certain directions, we have said that we will not oppose them because we believe that savings are necessary. Alterations to veterans' affairs and local government matters have proceeded on this basis. So savings proposed by the Government in those areas are being implemented. While we do not agree with the direction in which some of these cuts have been made, it is not our place to tell the Government what to do, although we could if we so desired. I invite the Government to seek our advice in that regard. The timing of the presentation of the Bill in this House makes it very difficult for exporters for whom June 1985 is a broken period, separate from the rest of that financial year. On 19 May 1985 the old export market development grants scheme was terminated, leaving that broken period which, I understand, will possibly extend to 30 June 1985. This will cause some difficulty for most businesses which finalise their annual accounts on 30 June. They will have to separate their export earnings and expenditure for those two periods. All those exporters who received grants under the old scheme expected that it would be effective until 30 June 1987. Many of the programs of penetration into overseas markets are developed by setting a time limit and working towards implementing a program within that time. I know, and I think the Government knows that many industries and many people involved in exporting will be gravely disconcerted that their expectation that the old scheme would not be terminated until 1987 has not been met and that the scheme was terminated in May 1985. There are also difficulties regarding the ceilings on the lower and higher levels of the rebate on export earnings. If this Bill was brought in to try to curb some abuses and to prevent some of the international companies from participating in the scheme, the grape shot blow has affected many small exporters with export earnings less than $5,000 which were trying to penetrate those markets. The $20m cut-off point is absolute. I can see that in the years ahead many exporters will not be participating and using their export potential to its full extent because they will be trying to limit their export earnings to $20m. Mr Peter Fisher —Especially the wine industry. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The wine industry is particularly disadvantaged by this Bill. That industry penetrates a market at a low profile, sets it up and in the following years exports build up. The wine industry is hit on both bases. Australian wines are acknowledged as some of the best in the world, and we are penetrating the international market. Those who have export programs in place will be disadvantaged by the cut-off date and the fact that their expectations were not met and they cannot achieve the full realisation of their potential. By putting a ceiling of $20m on export earnings, the Government has already built in an avoidance practice because people will not be taking full advantage of the export market. That is a great pity. The reductions in the grants were part of the savings announced in the May expenditure statement. These cuts have been introduced at a time when the export industries are under fairly heavy pressure both within and outside Australia. It was imperative for the Government to look a little more carefully at those grants, and I may deal with that later on. Possibly, the major problem relates to the tourist industry. We have a Bill that excludes the tourist industry completely. It had been included for many years. Expectations had been built into its overseas promotions. The tourist industry has been cut out by this Bill from 20 May 1985, but the worst part is that in spite of all the pronouncements by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) nothing has been put into the legislation to replace it and extend the export incentives. I feel that this Bill will result in a locking into export incentives and there will be no counterface in respect of the overseas marketing of tourism in Australia. So all the great expenditure that Hoges has gone to in promoting the great Australian tourist industry in the United States of America will come to nought unless the Government puts into place immediately something that links up with the amended scheme which will be effective on 20 May. Mr Blunt —He went overseas. He didn't even announce it himself. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Is he still overseas? Mr Blunt —I think so. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Well, there we are. It is imperative that he be in this House at this time with a Bill, to let the tourist industry of Australia know exactly what is going on. I look at the startled expression on the face of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I have a feeling that he is trying to tell me that no Bill is in place and that the tourist industry might have to wait for a long time before that comes about. In this whole exercise the Government has again demonstrated its complete lack of understanding of how business operates in Australia and how the programs are operated overseas. I have already mentioned the wine producers. I cannot help reiterating that the wine industry is one of the many industries that will be affected out of the change to the scheme and the ceilings that have been imposed. We have been told that this was to remove cases of abuse. People who use the scheme have described it very badly. I am prepared to say that there are very generous allowances. Any business in Australia seeking exports overseas would be foolish not to take advantage of the present incentives before moving overseas on those programs. I ask the Minister: How many cases have been prosecuted under the export market development grants scheme to date in order to curb that abuse by prosecution? I suggest there would be very few indeed. The expenditure cuts proposed by the Government amount to $1.2 billion. I cannot help mentioning the hypocrisy of the Government in this regard because these expenditure cuts are mainly from forward estimates. These were the famous forward estimates about which the Opposition receives constant reminders-the same estimates in 1983. But it is interesting to note that the Government now refuses to publish forward estimates. It says the figures are rubbery. We have expenditure cuts based on rubbery figures. Those programs were never in place and they are now being cut by the legislation. On top of that the Government is now saying that any forward estimates are rubbery. Honourable members have only to look at the results of the Budget. When I look at the results of the forecast Budget deficits, no exporter can take much consolation from that. After about five months reflection on these cuts the producing sector of Australia will realise, firstly, that the figures in the Forward Estimates were rubbery but wherever cuts have been made they predominantly fall on the export sector. I will mention some of the amounts. The rural and exporting sectors will face cuts of approximately $4m to $5m. I will mention some of them more specifically. The fuel freight equalisation will have a cut of $116m, adding to the cost of the producers in the country, particularly our rural industries. Local government works will face a cut of $62m. Perhaps people will not say that that is a great thing for the exporters, but that money was being used in the country for road preparation in order to move our industry products to the market. The road transport works and the bicentennial program will face a cut of $60m and the export market development grants will face a cut of $48m. It can be seen, therefore, that about $400 to $500m has been cut from the productive sector and so it is no wonder that it is a bit sour. The cuts have been selectively made and have been applied particularly to those in that sector and not to the whole community. I believe, as a member of the Opposition, that if these cuts have to be effected the hurt ought to be distributed more evenly than has been in this case. Let us not underestimate the importance of trade to Australia. It is a pertinent economic fact that Australia has a very small population but probably the greatest resources of any nation. That is the balance. The only way we can get that balance to work in favour of all Australians and keep up their standard of living is to exploit those resources with the work force we have and sell them overseas. That determines the living standards of all Australians. Every Australian, and in particular the government of the day, should appreciate that fact. We have seen this Government fly in the face of that by reducing export incentives at this time. People in capital cities and metropolitan areas may believe that their standard of living depends on how much they get in their pay packet at the end of an index period. It does not. It depends on how successfully and profitably our export industries operate. Let us get away from considering profit as a dirty word, because if we do not profit from the exploitation of our resources the standard of living of every Australian will surely drop. We have also to face the fact that export industries are now facing much higher costs associated with so many aspects of the community and with economic policies. How well we can sell overseas depends on how well we can compete on a cost basis. The high costs of exports of course are a result of interest rates, the wage component and the technology available to us. I give full credit to any industry competing successfully overseas because such an industry would have had to overcome a number of problems here in Australia. In industry at the moment there is a lack of motivation to overcome the problems I have mentioned-costs and distance from market and ports-and face the overseas challenges. I mention some of the ironies of the Australian situation. As I said, Australia has the largest resources in the world. We mine iron ore in Australia and sell it to Japan but we incur the costs of freight there and back. Japan can put products back into the Australian market probably cheaper than our own Australian products can be supplied. It is a fact that now, well after the war, Australia cannot build a complete motor car in the one factory. All the components come from the high technology areas overseas because that is a field that we have not sought to develop and exploit. Mr Hunt —We used to export more cars than Japan once. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. Television sets cannot be manufactured in Australia. Manufacturers have to import the technology. We are buying imports in vital areas. We have actually priced ourselves out of the overseas market and on top of that we have lacked the motivation to do anything about it. I come back to a product that I know so well-sugar. I know that we do trade in sugar, but the sugar industry does not produce a refined product to sell overseas in competition with other countries. Whilst we do the refining, we do not sell the refined product overseas. The lack of motivation and the lack of opportunity should be put in their proper perspective. They place extra costs on the Australian community. If industry cannot sell overseas because it has no incentive it means not just a loss of potential but also in many cases a lost job opportunity for people who would otherwise be employed. The opportunity to expand that those export incentives could provide is lost. So I believe that the Government should respond in the face of all these pressures and try to give some incentive, some motivation, back to Australian industry. However, we have seen exactly the reverse. As I said previously, when we talk about no expansion, restricted Australian production and the loss of overseas markets we are talking about the position of a workman in the work force trying to support his family. I come back to costs in Australia, which are reflected quite vividly in recent figures which show the balance of trade overseas and the net deficit. They indicate that Australia is not trading effectively enough to produce the overseas currency needed to offset our overseas debt. We have to bring in money from other channels, quite apart from trade, to bolster our position. The factor that is of interest in this area is the interest rate. Any Australian industry today that has a loan faces a massive handicap with interest rates. We have to come back to the very pertinent fact that it is an integral part of the Government's present economic policy to keep interest rates abnormally high, higher than expected by the community and the world outside. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) shakes his head, but he knows that it is absolutely true. Mr Hunt —Trying to hold up the dollar. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The Government is trying to hold up the devalued dollar. Its value is the mark of respect for our currency on overseas export markets. I hope that standing does not flow over into our products. I cite some figures. They are calculations of our interest and inflation rates in comparison with those of our major competitors and those countries with which we are trying to trade. The last time I checked this week, the Australian interest rate was 19.5 per cent, against a yearly inflation rate for the last six months of 5.8 per cent. So our real interest rate is almost 14 per cent. France has an interest rate of 5.8 per cent, and an inflation rate of 4 1/2 per cent, which gives it a real interest rate of 1.5 per cent. The United Kingdom has a 12.6 per cent interest rate and an inflation rate of 5 per cent, which gives it a real interest rate of 7.6 per cent. West Germany has an interest rate of 5.3 per cent. Its real interest rate is 3 per cent. The United States has an interest rate of 9.3 per cent and an effective real interest rate of 6 per cent. Japan has an interest rate of 7 per cent and an inflation rate of 2 per cent, which means a real interest rate of 5 per cent. Mr Robert Brown —We inherited the situation from you. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is what the Government keeps telling the people. The honour- able member should have listened to what I said first about rubbery figures, which his Government is not prepared to place on the table when discussing the Forward Estimates. I suggest that the honourable member listen to the very fine speeches on the Budget that have been given in this House over the last week which indicate where the problem is. We have been prepared to say that the blame for the problem does not lie exclusively with the Labor Government, although I believe that the major part of it does when one considers the deficit arrangements and our overseas borrowing. The blame also belongs to the governments of the 1970s and 1980s which for political reasons tried to artificially raise standards of living. We are now being crippled by the result. The figures I have just cited are a product of that situation. Some people might say that the real interest rate does not really matter. However, the fact is that with an interest rate comparable with an inflation rate business can pick up on inflation and afford to pay the interest. That is a major problem. It is a deliberate policy of this Government to keep up interest rates because it is trying to shore up the devalued dollar. If it were not for the shoring up of the dollar, goodness knows what it might be devalued to now. The figures I have cited are very important and figures which we should consider. Let us look at another government dominated cost factor, wages. We have just seen the spectacle of the Government agreeing with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the fine arbitrators of the economy, to reduce the inflationary flow-on effect of the devalued dollar by 2 per cent. However, in doing so, the Government is taking the decision out of the Arbitration Commission's hands, saying: `We will give you a 3 per cent flow-on for productivity'. The first question we have to ask ourselves is: What productivity? What right have the Government and the unions to determine the fate of every Australian company and industry from now to the end of June next year by arbitrarily getting a political accord that will be to the detriment of every Australian, particularly those exporters who will not be propped up by subsidies, because the subsidy and tariff arrangements in Australia belong to those supplying domestic industry, with all the inefficiencies of which they are sometimes capable? They are the two government instrumented factors in this regard. In regard to the nations with which we compete, it is important for Australians to realise that trade with the rest of the world is very difficult when those trading nations prop up the products they sell in competition with us with massive subsidies. Again, I go back to the situation of the sugar industry. I probably know it a little better than others. A recent edition of the Economist, dated 10 August 1985, claims that the European Economic Community is enslaved by subsidies. There is not one ounce or cent of subsidy of the Australian sugar industry at this stage. I make it clear to the rest of Australia that the sugar industry operates without any subsidy whatsoever. Yet we trade in competition with the EEC whose member countries prop up their products with subsidies of $400 to $500 per tonne. Those subsidies are paid by the citizens of the EEC. Those products are put out into the open market in competition with our own at an overseas price the market determines. How can our export trade survive unless we have very firm arrangements to come to the negotiating table, particularly with the EEC and the United States, to make sure that these matters are looked at very closely and rectified? All these comparisons are relative in regard to interest rates. The costs of those nations are being subsidised by lower real interest rates as compared with those of Australian industries. The Minister for Trade might like to comment on that later on. The Opposition has fundamental differences with the Government in regard to this Bill. I have already mentioned the exclusion of tourist promotion and the fact that there is no interlocking Bill in this regard. This is a major flaw and discrepancy in the Department's genuineness in trying to come to grips with expenditure cuts. I have mentioned the minimum and maximum ceilings and the fact that the large values will exclude small Australian-based companies that have large earnings but very narrow profit margins. They will certainly exclude the multinationals. Could we not come to grips with these multinationals? If the multinational produces in Australia, takes its work force from Australia and brings its earnings back to Australia, what in the name of goodness is wrong with the multinational? The Minister might care to tell me later why this area is regarded as one of the areas of abuse that have to be locked out. The minimum value set down in the Bill is $5,000. We have had representations-as would the Minister-which indicate that there are many small exporters who are trying to get into the market and who will grow eventually. They will be excluded in this regard. We are very distressed about the short notice-six days-between the announcement of the cuts and the effective date of the change. We have already mentioned that we believe the year ended 30 June, the taxation year, the normal accounting year for Australia, should be the basis. If somebody took an over-generous view of the grant he could get, to be dropped at the date of the announcement, could we not push that date back to 30 June by amendment so that we could have an easier row for the industries to hoe? As I see it, these expenditure cuts basically are being made on the basis that the Government has allocated a sum of money for grant entitlements next year. It does not matter what the grants are; all it will mean is that the backlog will be either greater or smaller than it was at 30 June. Perhaps the 30 June date would not affect the implications of the Budget in the long term strategy of expenditure cuts. Another problem is that there are no carry forward arrangements for expenditure entitlements under this scheme, whereas export earnings can be carried forward. Again, I believe that there is an inconsistency in that if a person has an excess of export entitlement expenditure that should be part and parcel of the carry forward arrangements. In connection with the change from the normal basis of expenditure incurred for the claiming of these grants, I also ask the Minister why the term `expenses acquitted' is now used? I ask the Minister this question because I know what the answer will be-that the expenses should be acquitted before 30 June and that no sundry creditors will be carried forward. I wonder whether the Minister and the Department of Trade have taken into account how the term `expenses acquitted' will be taken. For instance, if a bankcard arrangement is used overseas and that bankcard account is to be paid at the end of July, even though the expenditure was acquitted at the end of June, what will be the relative effect? Is the acquittal effected at the time of the payment or is it effected at the time the charge is made in July? There is a large area here that has not been addressed by this Bill. We have also indicated that we would like to have seen the larger grants continue had the abuse areas been cleaned up because the larger grants are built into expectations. Perhaps the problem with Australia is that too many expectations are being built in and there is no performance in that regard. But there are certain cases where industries will be deprived because the size of grant is dropping and that expectation has been removed. I understand from the Minister's opening statement that `proscribed nations' will be limited to South Africa. We will deal with that matter at the Committee stage. We believe that this Bill is about Australian industries trying to export overseas to earn those trade dollars that are necessary for Australia's survival. Proscribing nations in this regard has no relevance to this Bill whatsoever. It can only be to the detriment and the hurt of Australians themselves. As I mentioned earlier, these requests have been made to the Minister. We hope that he will be listening to them. We hope that, in the course of the Committee stage, amendments will be made in line with the things that we have been mentioning. We have costings on the suggestions that have been made to the Minister if he requires them and we hope that the Minister can give them some consideration. I repeat that the Opposition will not oppose this Bill but we will support any amendment that the Government brings up in that regard. We will not oppose this Bill because it is part of the expenditure cuts of May 1985. To indicate to the Minister what it is seeking in this regard, the Opposition moves the following amendment: That all the words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House condemns the Government for: (1) its lack of notice to and consultations with exporters in bringing in the legislation and making it effective 6 days after the announcement; (2) its failure to recognise the commitment of the original scheme to provide grants on the original basis to 30 June 1987; (3) the uncertainty caused by dividing a year into parts and not recognising the normal year ending at 30 June, and (4) its lack of understanding in disadvantaging small business from competing for grants'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hunt —Madam Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.34) —The export market development grants program raises some fundamental questions about the directions in which Australia is going as a trading nation in an increasingly difficult world trading environment. There is a fundamental premise which we must begin with and which needs to be taken into account. We must base our analy- sis of the trading possibilities and trading philosophy for Australia on a realistic assessment of what is actually happening in world trade rather than on some theoretical point of view which paints a false picture of that reality. In particular, we cannot continue to act on the false belief that there is an international free trading market on which trading relationships are based. That false assumption has done substantial damage. It has led to a false sense of what can be achieved and how to achieve it. This free trade model is based on three false assumptions: Firstly, trade is the exchange between nations that have basically fixed financial and monetary structures and, therefore, the balance of relations between nations is based on the extent of the trade between them. Secondly, trade is essentially between companies that compete with one another in the market-place, the difference being the market-place is in the different nations rather than being the domestic market-place. Thirdly, world trade is generally based on the real prices of products and not on the impact on prices of subsidies, bounties, tariffs and other protective mechanisms. These three assumptions not only are erroneous but also create a conceptual framework for the understanding of trade which is quite misleading and false. If we base our analysis on this framework we will go seriously wrong in our understanding not only of the possibilities of trade but also of the possibilities for industry policy in Australia. In what way is this conceptual framework wrong? Firstly, one needs to look at the role of the financial system, especially the role of the movement of money around the world, and the impact that this has on the possibilities of trade and indeed the positive impact that trade can have on any economy. Thus, for example, one must ask the question: Is it better to trade one's commodities with another country or to seek foreign capital to produce commodities within one's own country. That is to say, if one has a need for a particular commodity is it better to purchase that commodity from another nation or is it better to try to encourage another country to invest its capital in our country and produce that product here? There is no universal answer to that question. This is because it is complicated by the following fact: Obviously, currency inflows and currency outflows have an important relationship to the possibilities of trade and the impact of trade. If we have massive capital inflow to finance production for our domestic needs, that is a very different proposition from having a massive capital inflow to finance production for export performance. Which course should we follow? What controls can we have on these currency inflows? Secondly, much trade is not between companies that are in open competition with one another. Often trade is between multinational corporations that have interaction with one another and often within the same corporation. So it may be that figures show up on the balance books of nations as being trade between one country and another which, however, are nothing more than a transfer of goods or components of products from one arm of a corporation in one nation to another arm in another nation. This is a very significant fact because much of world trade now consists of transfers of this kind within a corporation or corporations that are interlinked rather than the kind of competitive situation which the free marketeers would have us believe goes on in the world. This is important because it raises the question of the scepticism which we should show towards concepts such as comparative advantage in trade. Obviously, in the liberal free-market type of world which is envisaged in the conceptual framework that I have criticised, the concept of comparative advantage has some application. It has very little application in a situation where world trade is complicated by these two factors. Thirdly, the factor that makes the situation even worse is the extent of protection and protective mechanisms in the form of quotas, standards, tariffs and subsidies for various products. One response to all this has been: `What we need is a further freeing up of capital markets, a further freeing up of trade markets, reductions in protection, reductions in quota systems, in standards and in the misuse of standards criteria to ensure that trade is completely and utterly liberalised'. Leaving aside for the moment whether this sort of approach is desirable, one has to ask: What are the realistic possibilities of this being achieved in the next 10, 20 or 50 years? The answer is a very pessimistic one indeed. It is extremely unlikely that nations will move away from systems of subsidisation, systems of quotas, systems of tariffs, et cetera, and overcome the domination of world trade by the multinational corporations. We should, therefore, focus on the problem and possibilities within the realistic framework and not some mythical framework which does not exist and is unlikely to exist for a long time. We should recognise that Australia is a country in an unusual position in relation to trade. On the one hand, there is a group of countries which are the centres of multinational corporations, which are highly industrialised, which are aggressive in their export orientation and which are in a position to behave in a dominating fashion in relation to capital movements, especially to the Third World. On the other hand, we have the underdeveloped countries which are mostly dependent on the sale of commodities and some agricultural products and which are extremely dependent on loans and grants from the first world countries or from international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund. The trade imbalance between these two blocs, not to mention the increasing indebtedness of the developing Third World, has been focused on time and again in the discussions of the so-called North-South dialogue and ought, I add, to be discussed more often in this Parliament. Australia falls into neither camp. On the one hand, it is a producer of basic commodities in the minerals area and in agricultural products. As such, Australia is subject to many of the problems which have now plagued some of the developing countries, I refer to the problems of access to markets, the determination of prices for raw materials by the power of the multi- national corporations in the major industrialised countries and the power of the international financial institutions to impose terms and conditions on loans and criteria under which they are prepared to accept commodity goods and even the prices at which the commodity goods will be accepted. What has previously been seen to be a great blessing for Australia, namely, the power of its natural resources sector, has increasingly been weakened by the general game plan and strategy of the multinational corporations and the way in which they affect all countries that have raw materials. But what is even more serious is the way in which they affect the struggling developing countries by going in and imposing prices and terms of conditions of trade, and even playing off one country against another. It is no wonder that the minerals sector, and the agricultural sector to a lesser but nevertheless substantial degree, has been subjected to upheavals in Australia and is no longer seen as the great saviour of the Australian economy. Certainly, it is not the saviour of the economy which it was perceived to be in other periods of our history. Under these circumstances one could say: `Well, the resolution of the problem is the industrial sector'. However, Australia also differs from other major industrialised countries in that its industrialised sector suffers from being small and fragile. When I say small, I do not mean small in its servicing of a wide variety of products to the Australian community, but small in that the overall market available to it is not substantial. What is the source of this problem? The operation of the multinationals in their game plan for Australia has been a twofold strategy; firstly, to penetrate the Australian economy with manufactured imports, especially those produced in cheaper Third World markets but also those produced in more competitive ways through huge production runs in the major industrialised countries. It is not simply a matter of imports from the developing Asian countries. It is also a matter of imports from European countries, and indeed the United States of America and Japan, which have the capacity effectively to undercut local production in a very big way. The second problem is that, where Australia has attempted to put controls on the penetration of imports by the multinationals, the multinationals have often decided to move here to produce or part-produce their manufactured goods. This process in itself has not been a bad development but the philosophy of it was an entire focus on import replacement; that is, the multinationals were concerned only to produce for the Australian market-sometimes for some of the Pacific neighbour countries but certainly not for the world market. The multinationals were in no way interested in localising production in Australia of goods or services such as computer services which could be exported to the Third World as a whole. They have never shown an interest in Australia as a major world exporter. They are interested in Australia only to the extent of manufacture for the domestic market. The effect has been to localise production here when travel costs were too expensive or when they were forced to do so by controls imposed by governments. They have shown little interest in export. This goes to the heart of the question as to why Australia has not developed its export manufacturing industry. We are constantly subjected to harangues from the Opposition about wage cost structures, efficiency of production techniques and the creativity of Australian enterprise. In fact, given its population base, Australia has performed well under all those criteria. Australia's productive capacity is not a bad one. The problem is that the multinational corporations, which dominate Australian manufacturing and, equally importantly, dominate the financing of manufacturing, even of domestic manufacturers, have been in a position to dominate our export performance. They have concentrated almost entirely on domestic production rather than on export performance. In so doing, they have encouraged an economic strategy, an industrial strategy and a trading strategy which in the long term are not viable for this country. This does not mean that Australia should not continue with import replacement as part of a general industrial strategy. What it does mean is that, while we continue with that strategy, we must recognise that it is a short term and medium term strategy. In the long term, if we are to fit in with the rest of the world and ensure that our industrial base is one relevant to the world, especially as the world economy becomes more closely linked and more internationalised, we must ensure that there are areas in which we are the world leaders, in which we are efficient both at the technological level and in the availability of markets, so that we can export to the rest of the world. What must we do in this respect? It is important that we ensure that, if the multinational corporations are active in this country, they direct their energies not merely towards domestic production but also towards export orientation. We must have the two goals together and not an unbalanced policy. An unbalanced policy is the one which has given the foreign multinationals access to the Australian market without requiring from them a commitment that they will assist with their enormous powers to get access into the world market for Australian produced goods. This has been the failure of our trading policy in the past. Of course, we could try to develop such a strategy by negotiations with the major multinational corporations. I hope that we can do that. It should be made perfectly clear to them, however, that they should not be given immediate access to the cream of the Australian market without some commitment to provide resources and to provide export orientation for our products, especially those products for which we are clearly technologically advanced and in a position to compete on fair terms with the rest of the world. I emphasise the words `on fair terms'. I do not mean on unfair terms in the sense that we have to compete against subsidised industries, protected industries and industries for which heavy bounties and quotas are imposed against us. This leads me to the point and purpose of the Bill before us. The Bill recognises many of the points that I have just made. It recognises that many of the international companies have come here, seized upon and used export incentive programs but that the promises they have made have not been matched by performance. All kinds of excuses have been offered. The big companies have claimed that they do not control the overseas markets. Let me make it clear that other governments have some power but, more often than not, it is simply decisions in the boardrooms which have frustrated and prevented a general strategy of export orientation for Australian products. The general thrust of this Bill recognises the need to promote, in the first instance, export orientation from domestic Australian companies. Indeed, this is the reason why we have put into the Bill the requirement that exporters with earnings in excess of $20m be excluded from the export orientation scheme. We are now focusing on those companies which have Australian interests at heart and can participate in the world arena in that particular way. For this reason we have limited export grants to the medium companies which are mostly Australian owned and which are focusing on Australian interests. We have recognised that big multinational corporations do not need further assistance to continue with their export orientation. They are sufficiently large and profitable not to need the export grants. The other point is that the export development grants clearly have not been used in such a way that they are useful or have achieved the goals before them. The report of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, which was commissioned by the Government to inquire into this matter, concluded that the program had been wasteful; that there had been an insufficient requirement for performance; and that often the export development grants had been used as a form of subsidy for many companies without the companies making a sufficient effort to achieve results, especially in the case of the multinational corporations. In focusing on these particular changes I support wholeheartedly the changes that have been brought in and the emphasis on performance as a criterion for achieving the grants. I am hopeful that with the greater focus on the new export grants we can substantially improve Australia's export performance. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.52) —We have just listened to some obscure, ideological, big business belting ramble from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). He is full of phrases like domination by the multinationals. Dr Theophanous —You did not understand what I said about the multinationals. Mr BEALE —I will come to that. He spoke of the game plan and strategy of the multinationals, yet he says himself: `There is no universal answer to the multinational situation'. The honourable member has no understanding of business. It is a pleasure to return to the real world to talk about the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill. This Bill follows the report of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel under the chairmanship of Mr Bill Ferris of Barlow Marine Ltd in Sydney. I am not surprised that the honourable member for Calwell is leaving the chamber after the performance he gave. It is appropriate to congratulate Mr Ferris and his panel on the quality of the report they have produced. Furthermore, it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Government has responded reeasonably quickly to the recommendations of the report. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) he acknowledged that in recent years Australia's trade performance had been relatively poor and that there was an urgent need to improve our performance in this area. The honourable member for Calwell, who is just fleeing the chamber, has said that we are operating in an increasingly difficult trading environment. However, it is certainly to be hoped that the Minister is not under the misguided impression that the only way to improve our trading performance is by the amendments proposed in this Bill, nor that our trade performance will be improved by the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission. It is always interesting to note that whenever this Government gets into any kind of trouble it recruits people from the private sector, as it has now done with the members and managing director of the Australian Trade Commission. It gets people who will `provide exporters with a full range of advice and assistance but in a more consolidated and co-ordinated fashion' and `as such the Commission will encourage a more efficient and targeted approach to Australia's export effort'. How ironic it is that on the one hand this Government looks to the private sector for help, as with the Australian Trade Commission or the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, yet on the other hand it implements policies continually that have the effect of curtailing, frustrating and circumventing the private sector. Since it assumed office this Government has increased spending in its three Budgets at an annual rate of nearly 5 per cent in real terms. It is supporting the coercive power of the trade union movement in such situations as Mudginberri, where it has refused to condemn the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union for breaking the law. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) calls it, it is simply a piddling affair. The Government's National Taxation Summit proposals fell apart in a shady back room hotel deal that positively discriminates against the private sector. It has been said that exports are the lifeblood of a nation and if exports maintain a serious decline it is not long before everyone is sitting under the trees eating bananas for dinner. The policies of this Government are turning Australia into a banana republic. Australia has always had, almost since its inception as a nation, a proud and honourable record as one of the world's most active, viable and prosperous trading nations. This is a record which we should be desperate to foster and maintain. As part of that record we should not forget that we have exported hot dog machines to the United States; a land where the hot dog is the staple food at most sporting, social and community gatherings. We have also exported ploughs to the Ivory Coast. Australia has a tremendous record in its innovation, production and sale of primary equipment to the world. We have exported jams to Libya. No doubt this occurred before the extraordinary fiasco which I detailed to the Parliament in recent months where one of Australia's largest jam manufacturers tried to introduce a sugarless jam to our market to give its customers a lower calorie, healthier and more tasteful product, only to be thwarted by a plethora of government regulations and need for government consultation, and so it had to drop its marketing idea. Despite our current difficulties we are still one of the world's great exporters of primary products, but regretfully it is time that the nation and the Government faced a new reality; that our golden days as one of the world's great exporters are over. The harsh and cruel reality of the situation and its urgency can be seen in what has happened to our external debt. It is not necessary to remind the House that the increase in overseas debt arises because of our inability to export to the world community. At the end of June 1984 our gross external debt was $45 billion. At the end of June this year it was $68.5 billion and in the last two months it has increased by a further $2.25 billion to nearly $71 billion. The Government is to be condemned for this enormous deterioration in our external debt position which has taken place in such a short period. Mr Price —By private enterprise. Mr BEALE —I will come to that. Last year our gross external debt was 24 per cent of gross domestic product but this year it is over 33 per cent. A number of eminent Australians, all extremely well-informed and extraordinarily well placed to understand the position, have issued urgent public warnings that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. They have warned that if we do not arrest the significant climb in our overseas debt we will end up eating bananas for dinner and then will properly be part of the little league of banana republics. In 1979-80 our gross external debt was less than $14 billion-about 12 per cent of gross domestic product-so our debt has almost trebled in five years. The Government is anxious to obscure its extraordinary mismanagement of this crucial part of its economic program. It has claimed that our net external debt is only 25 per cent of gross domestic product and has tried to defuse the issue by using that figure. In fact, as will emerge, the Government is trying to defuse this issue by the introduction of a series of irrelevant statistics into this general debate. Both the Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have been guilty of hiding from the Australian people the difficulties we face with our external obligations. To return to 1979-80, our net external debt in that year was only 6.3 per cent and so it has actually quadrupled in the last five years. There is less comfort for the Government in the fact that service payments on our external debt for 1984-85 are estimated to be $11.5 billion, as compared with $1.8 billion in 1979-80-a sevenfold increase. It is time to remind the House of the chilling remarks by the Treasury in this year's Budget Paper No. 1 which says: A marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected, reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity based exports. The Treasury adds: The depreciation can be expected to increase markedly the deficit on property income and transfers. It will increase external debt servicing payments, and . . . will result in a higher stock of external debt in Australian dollar terms. What the Treasury is implying is that we are likely to be in a significantly worse position at the end of this year than at present and the results of the first two months balance of payments deficit of about $1 billion a month confirm the Treasury's view. The Government has sought to confuse the whole external debt issue by implying that, because the private sector has borrowed a significant proportion of this external debt and because it did so to facilitate resource investment and commodity prices which presumably would be mainly in United States dollar terms, the situation is not as serious as it appears. Here again, the private sector becomes the whipping boy of this Government. Not all the money borrowed by the private sector will produce an operating surplus in the currency in which it was borrowed, and the Government's pathetic performance, in its failure to discount effectively wages forthwith, means that operating surpluses will be reduced and ability to pay interest and repay capital will still be dependent on the viability of our export trade. Furthermore, it is the Government's mismanagement of our economy that has allowed the international financial community to pass judgment on us and to depreciate our dollar by around 25 per cent this year, thus adding $20 billion to our external debt obligation. The proportion of that external debt that is borrowed by the private sector must be repaid by the private sector and the Government's policies have increased the amount that it will be called on to repay. However one looks at this matter, it is clear that the Government's policies are sharply increasing the extent to which we are in hock to the rest of the world. The key to restoring our terms of trade, the key to redressing the slide in our currency and the key to containing the growth in our overseas obligations lies solely in our becoming more competitive in world markets. Dr Theophanous —We are competitive. Mr BEALE —Oh! I am glad that the honourable member has come back into the House, perhaps he will learn something for a change. Of real importance to our competitiveness is our rate of inflation. The Budget Papers predicted that our rate of inflation this year is likely to be 8 per cent. But let me quote what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said to the New South Wales Economic Society on 30 July 1985: Our inflation rate could reach 8 per cent or a little more in the course of the next year. Or a little more! The Prime Minister is already admitting that one of the key assumptions made in the Budget is astray. The estimated Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries' average inflation rate will be less than 5 per cent for the same period. Accordingly, our inflation rate will be nearly double that of our major trading partners, or 4 per cent greater, thus further undermining our international competitiveness, putting further pressure on the value of our dollar and forcing our international obligations even higher. The incredible thing is that our Budget was prepared in this situation of crisis and accordingly, our fiscal, monetary and wages policies should have been brought to bear on that crisis. But what do we find in the fiscal area? We find that public sector outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product are the highest on record. We find that taxation revenue is the highest on record, and we find that Commonwealth Government receipts as a percentage of GDP are also the highest on record. In monetary policy, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson pointed out, we now have interest rates at the highest ever level in real terms being artificially maintained to protect the Australian dollar so that we will not have even further obligations to discharge internationally. In the current application to the main conciliation and arbitration tribunal we see yet another of those backroom deals which the Government has done with its Australian Council of Trade Unions masters. It has agreed to a full flow-on of the effects of the consumer price index and it is clear that the Government's position is a disaster. Our exporters need relief now. Inflationary pressures must be brought under control now. We must start restoring our competitive edge now. Palliatives like the export market development grants assist our exporters but they do not affect the fundamentals. If our costs are higher than those of our competitors we will lose markets and once markets are lost they are rarely regained. The Ferris panel has gone some distance in making the current scheme more genuine by closing the gate on some of the more dubious aspects. But the essential point is that these grants will be of little use if the inflationary pressures, exacerbated by the Government's position that it is adamant in its opposition to deregulation of the labour market, wipe us out of our overseas markets by making us internationally uncompetitive. This Government must address itself to our overseas debt crisis and it can only do this by alleviating inflationary pressures in the Australian economy. At the heart of those inflationary pressures, already acknowledged by the Prime Minister to be higher than those mentioned in the Budget Papers which are less than a month old, lie the arrangements reached with the ACTU which are diametrically opposed to the best interests of all Australians and diametrically opposed to the creation of more prosperity in our society. That is the message which the world financial community is delivering to us. That is the message Australian exporters are begging this Government to understand and that is the message that this Government, if it is to meet the trust the Australian community has placed in it, must get through to its masters in the ACTU. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.8) —I welcome the initiative taken by the Hawke Labor Government in introducing the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill as part of the Government's determination to improve Australia's export performance. I have listened intently to the comments that have been made, particularly those by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Also I read with interest the introductory speech by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). It is quite clear that for many years Australia's ranking as a world exporter has been deteriorating. I looked up some statistics yesterday and I found that over the past 30 years Australia has slipped from eighth position to twenty-third. In the same period our share of the world export market has dropped from 2.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent. The international purchasing power of our exports has shown weak growth over the last three decades compared with other countries and it actually declined in the 10 years prior to 1983. This is of major concern to every Australian, regardless of political persuasion. There is also a concern that there has been a decline in Australia's ability to penetrate major overseas markets. It is not true just to those countries that are far away; most regrettably it is true in the Asian and western Pacific region as a whole. It is not unfair to say that Australia's efforts to develop the export of products in high demand have been less than satisfactory. It is certainly true that our performance has been very poor. Like many Australians I have asked why. We must question why Australia has dropped in terms of world trade. I see two principal reasons. Firstly, an aspect beyond our control has been that over the last 30 years world demand for primary commodities has grown far more slowly than that for manufactures. We need to remember that primary commodities have accounted for over 75 per cent of Australia's export since the mid-1950s, and prior to that, during the postwar period, the percentage was even greater. Coupled with this drop in demand has been the escalation of protectionism in the major world commodity markets. We have also seen the massive use of subsidies by what I would deem to be less efficient producers. The present plight of our sugar and dairy industries and the ongoing threat to our beef and cereal markets are very real present day examples of these factors, and I will comment on this aspect later on. The second major cause of our poor trading performance cannot be blamed on any other country. I refer to the inward-looking nature of our manufacturing industry. Two months or so ago I was at a business meeting in Canberra to listen to a senior industry leader whose company has been making major inroads in the South East Asian area and pioneering new markets in this region. He said that he believed that too many Australian manufacturers had a fortress mentality, that they strangely but strongly believe that they are locked into the Australian mainland, as if it were surrounded by some huge, impenetrable fortress wall. He went on to criticise what he saw as the vacuum of knowledge that existed in so many board rooms of our manufacturing industries and firms, a vacuum of knowledge regarding the potential of overseas markets that exist around us near home. I think it is true to say that, despite the fact that manufactured exports have been the driving force in other countries behind the growth in world trade since the Second World War, Australia's manufacturing industries have been slow to take up the challenge. It is certainly true that many industries have demonstrated that they have been ill equipped to fight for, and more importantly, to capture and hold on to a share of the rapid growth in world manufacturers' trade. The deterioration of our export performance also has broad implications, and previous speakers have remarked on this. Australia's external accounts have weakened and we had a trade deficit for 1984-85 of some $704m compared with a very small surplus in the previous financial year of $174m. In contrast imports have been growing rapidly. This Government has recognised the situation. Despite the problems we had for eight years under a Liberal-National Party Government, this Government is determined to do something about them. I believe that this Government will be commended by the community and industry alike for its willingness to tackle the problems. In 1974 a previous Federal Labor Government, again acknowledging the importance of lifting Australia's performance in export markets, introduced the export market development grants scheme. The idea was great. It was applauded and backed by industry, which said: `Yes, we need the financial incentive'. But since then, despite the concept, it has been shown, especially by the report of the Ferris National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, that the scheme was not achieving its objective. Over these last 10 years the taxpayers of Australia have contributed $1,500m in taxable export incentive grants, not only by Labor governments but by previous tory governments as well. Some $1.5 billion has been given to assist Australian industry to export. Despite this enormous assistance from the public purse, Australia's export performance has been poor and, as I have said, our share of the world export market has continued to decline. There has been a need for significant change and review and reform of the scheme. Despite the evidence that existed prior to 1983 nothing was done by the Liberal-National Party Government. So I congratulate the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) on the measure he has introduced to this House. It will make the firms involved more accountable. After all, it is public money. It will give greater incentive to perform, because if industries do not perform in the first two years they will be out. It will ensure that the money will go to those industries that really need the assistance and not to those multinationals that have the financial capacity to perform in their own right. It is also aimed at intensifying Australia's strategy to fight back, to regain our share of the world export market. I welcome and applaud the Government's decision to establish the Australian Trade Commission from January next year. This surely will provide exporters with a full range of advice and assistance in a much more consolidated and co-ordinated form than to date. It will encourage a more efficient and targeted approach to Australia's export efforts. I am pleased also with the measures that have been taken already to set up trade attaches in Bahrain, China and now Russia. There certainly is an urgency to attack the problem. It is not too late to fight back. I suggest that there is a need not only to expand the area of manufacturers' exports but also to hold on to what Australia has in the primary commodities sector. I listened with interest to Mr Frans Andriesson, the Vice-President responsible for agriculture and fisheries of the Commission of the European Communities, when he met with members of the Government's primary industries and rural and provincial affairs committee on Tuesday of this week. Despite the personal assurance he gave that the proposed sale of the 800,000 tonnes of beef held in storage by the EC will be monitored to ensure that it does not interfere with Australia's sales-despite the Andreisson agreement which was successfully negotiated and achieved by this Government, especially by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)-I express grave concern for Australia's beef producers in particular. On one hand Mr Andriesson says that there have been cuts in the EC's internal support price scheme. We have seen the introduction of quota systems for sugar and milk whereby excess production will receive only the prevailing world price. He went on to give the assurance that there will be no subsidised beef exports to our markets-Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. But on the other hand this week in Canberra he repeatedly put his position on the world export market by saying that the EC does not generally recognise claims to traditional markets. At the National Press Club he said: I cannot accept that such a thing as a country's `own market' exists. He also admitted that in an effort to clear the beef stockpile the EC has been flogging off subsidised beef to 10 Asian countries, including China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the Philippines, Burma and Sri Lanka. It is vital that Australia be able to protect its existing markets. It is vital that the producer be able to upgrade marketing strategies. I accept that price is so often the only and real determinant when a country buys a product. I cannot blame those countries for buying cheap beef or other subsidised primary commodities. Regrettably I have little faith in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-GATT-because it has no punitive powers against those countries that, through their trading practices, gain an unfair and inequitable share of trade. It is because of this that I believe Australia must find other ways to attract and lock in our international customers. I believe that one way to increase significantly our trade is to lock it into foreign aid. I have checked the tables that have been given by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and made comparisons of the linkage between Australian aid and trade, and it is quite disturbing. For instance, I find that Austria has a 77 per cent link. In other words, for every $10m given in aid, $7.7m is locked into trade with Austria. The figure for Canada is 54.4 per cent; France, 53.6 per cent; Belgium, 45.4 per cent; the United States of America, 44 per cent; the United Kingdom, 41.03 per cent; New Zealand, 36.7 per cent; Japan, 30 per cent; Australia, 29.6 per cent. We just exceed Germany, which is a little over 20 per cent. I cannot accept that that is a very satisfactory arrangement. Some time ago I went to Papua New Guinea and noticed the enormous amount of aid that is given by Australia by way of Budget support. Some 97 per cent of the $300m that is given annually is untied. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, on the review that he has negotiated to begin from 1 July 1986 to decrease untied grants generally. That $300m comes from the Australian taxpayers' purse; yet large parts of it is spent with Japan. I saw everywhere the Japanese cars, Japanese equipment, Japanese typewriters, Japanese bikes and Japanese computers, bought with our money. I acknowledge the need for sensitivity when tying aid to trade. I acknowledge that we should not interfere with a nation's development strategies. But it is obvious that the tying of aid to trade to around $1 for every $2 given has economic importance, otherwise our major export competitors would not require such an arrangement. I remind honourable members of the 77 per cent link that Austria has. I suggest that there are many advantages: Increased sales of Australian products obviously is the first and foremost; the opening of new markets; its ability to provide opportunity and potential for follow-up sales; and, from the manufacturers' area, the further supply and after supply of parts and maintenance, and then the complementary sales. There is an example in Queensland-not in the area of trade and aid, but in general trade-where C'Itoh has involved itself in the power industry and has given the Queensland Government a special price when it comes to equipment, the boilers and so on, for power-houses. There is a special price, a lower cost contractual arrangement. Why? It is because that Japanese company has now locked Queensland into the company for the next two decades. We cannot use any other equipment. We need the company to maintain our equipment. In other words, one can see the enormous financial advantages to C'Itoh of Japan. I urge a gradual review of the trade-aid link. We must head towards a higher percentum to ensure that on the dollars given we get a greater return economically. In doing that, we may also assist in heading off the effect of the aggressive marketing tactics of the European Community. One way of matching subsidised prices is by locking up the use of aid money given. In conclusion, I make a few comments on the remarks of honourable members opposite. I was quite surprised by the comments of the shadow Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I was surprised that he wants to maintain, as it seems, the deficiencies of the export market development grants. His Party closed its eyes to the problems between 1975 and 1983, regardless of the decline in our export position. It did nothing to monitor the moneys being spent, despite the fact that they amounted to over $1 billion. Now he has come to this chamber carrying a brief for the non-achievers and what I would see are the multinationals. The new provisions clearly say that only those firms which export shall continue to receive the export market development grants beyond the two years. But there is still the two years' grace in which to get involved and open those markets and to perform. It has also been set out very clearly by way of this measure that the grant shall not be payable to claimants with export earnings in excess of $20m annually. Surely, when a government's resources are scarce and when the recipients have the capacity to do their own thing, that money should be used elsewhere; it should be given to others. I am concerned also at the criticisms made by the honourable member for Dawson of the moves to introduce a new tourism overseas promotion scheme-commonly called TOPS. I urge the honourable member to rethink his point of view there, because the new scheme will give tourism a special export position. It will continue Government assistance to the tourist industry, it will mean a more co-ordinated and efficient promotional effort, and it will enable specialist advice to be given to those prospective tourist promotions. The promoters want this type of assistance, and there is a need to distinguish it and separate it from the existing export scheme. I welcome these measures and I urge honourable members to support them. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.23) —I join with my colleagues in giving some support to the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill, but I give only qualified support; I cannot give support with the same enthusiasm as speakers on the Government side of the House. First, though, I congratulate Mr Ferris and the Ferris committee on the extremely capable and competent job that they have done in identifying some of the problems associated with Australian trade and the administration of Australian trade policy. I look forward to some of the other recommendations in the report seeing the light of day in the foreseeable future. My reservations about this Bill are two-fold. First, I have some reservations about the details of the Bill. Secondly, I have some reservations about the total concept of export incentive schemes of this kind, particularly when it is perfectly clear that these sorts of export incentive schemes are designed to compensate for the failure of other aspects of the Government's economic strategy. This Bill has been introduced at a critical time for Australia, for the Australian economy and for our exporters. The great challenge for this country is to try to regenerate its export industries as quickly and as effectively as possible. Clearly, we have a great need to try to gain greater shares of agricultural markets. Others have alluded to that. We also have to look forward with hope to a day in the future when our raw material exports may also bring greater returns and stronger and larger markets. But concerning manufacturing industry, the outlook for the time being is still very bleak in terms of gaining a greater share of export markets. Over the last 30 years Australia has dropped from being the eighth largest exporter to the twenty-third largest exporter. Whereas 30 years ago we had 2.6 per cent of world trade, today that has fallen to 1.2 per cent. Manufacturing and service exports nowadays are only 8 per cent of out total exports. Another very relevant figure in terms of our manufacturing performance in export markets is that in the 1970s our manufacturing exports grew by 2.2 per cent per annum, whereas the world average was 6.7 per cent. It is clear, then, that we have a major problem in terms of our export industries. Yet exports are absolutely central, as the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has pointed out, to our national growth and our economic survival. A hundred million dollars of export income a year, it is said, creates some 5,000 jobs. But manufacturing will survive only if it can compete with imports and can get into export markets. Then those jobs will be created; then the Australian economy, in a long term sense, will be able to prosper. This Bill is the sole contribution so far by this Government to a recovery in Australian exports. The export market development grants will consume $117m out of the $209m used for export promotion in this financial year. But expenditure on the EMDGs will decline this year by 34.6 per cent, and expenditure on total export assistance will decline by 25.5 per cent. I would be hypocritical if I did not say that I saw great need for cuts in government expenditure, and there is no question that that must be done urgently. But all the Government has so far done to try to help our export industries prosper and gain greater shares of export markets is to introduce this measure and to reduce expenditure on export promotion. It shows that the Government has overlooked the more fundamental issues, or at least that it has run away from them. One has only to look at the report sent to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) by the Australian Manufacturers Export Council to see what opportunities the Government has missed in terms of developing policies for exports. The Council outlined an agenda for the Government which, if fulfilled, would achieve the results that all Australians want for our export industries. Let us look at that agenda. First, the Council called for a: Reduction in size of government and its demands on the nation's resources. Yet we have seen in this year's Budget a 1.3 per cent increase in public expenditure, a public sector borrowing requirement which is to consume 5.6 per cent of our gross domestic product, which is more than double the United States percentage, and a still burgeoning public debt and public debt interest bill. That item on the Council's agenda has been completely ignored by the Government. Secondly, the AMEC called for `a tax system which rewards . . . risk'. Yet this year we have had a 13.3 per cent increase in pay as you earn tax receipts and businesses, including export businesses, are being threatened with a capital gains tax and a tax on fringe benefits. I understand those issues are before the full Ministry today. The third item on the AMEC agenda called for: Real reductions in the inflated Australian labour cost structure. What did the Council get in return for proposing that item on the agenda? There will be an increase in wages this year of approximately 10 per cent as a result of a deal done between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and as a result of a wages system which is 80 years old and is irrelevant to the fundamental needs of our industries trying to get into export markets. The fourth item on the agenda called for access to competitive finance. Very few honourable members need to be reminded that in this country we have the highest real interest rates in 50 years. We have a staggering interest rate bill which is stifling investment and the result is that we have the lowest level of investment as a proportion of our GDP for 10 years. The fifth item on the AMEC agenda called for: The removal of costly and stifling government regulations. All I can say is that the Government has done precisely nothing to address that proposal, which has been brought up again and again by the business community and has always been ignored by Labor governments. The same points have been made by all sorts of organisations, newspapers and so on. The Australian Financial Review of 15 August 1984 stated: It- being the Government- will need to pay much more attention to the relationship between internal cost levels and external competitiveness. What the Government has done is to ignore that advice and it has fallen back on one strategy; namely, the $117m to be spent on the export market development grants. The Australian Financial Review, referring to this scheme, stated that it: . . . obscures the need for more fundamental economic policies aimed at making exports competitive. An Industries Assistance Commission report in 1982 was very illustrative in the approach it took to the EMDG scheme and its relevance to the long term success of Australian exporters. It made some of the same points made by the Australian Manufacturers Export Council, the Australian Financial Review and a large number of business associations, but it made the additional point that, if exports were to be promoted, there was an urgent need for a reduction in our levels of protection. The IAC stated: The implementation of a policy of general reductions in protection would encourage the development of export . . . activities by reducing the cost penalties resulting from the provision of relatively high levels of assistance to many import-competing industries. Those should be the policy priorities for the Government. While something like the EMDG scheme is helpful, it is really wide of the mark. So much more has to be done. Those issues I have referred to are regarded by the present Government as simply too hard. My point is borne out by the fact that Australia already has a current account balance of payments deficit of some $10 billion. It is expected to grow in 1985-86. The opportunities provided by the devaluation of the Australian dollar have been all but lost by the Government's decision, made with its friends in the ACTU, to abandon wage discounting. To be perfectly honest, I must add that although the change to this scheme is the only initiative introduced so far by the Government to promote exports, it has foreshadowed two other initiatives. One is the reformation of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service. Although legislation has yet to be brought forward, and I would not want to commit myself at this stage to supporting what I have not seen, I certainly support the general thrust of the statements by the Minister to the effect that the Trade Commissioner Service should be restructured with a more private enterprise emphasis. The second initiative about which the previous Minister for Trade, now the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), spoke at some length was the establishment of an overseas trading corporation. I hope that the present Minister will address this issue when he winds up this debate later on and that he will tell us what has happened to the plans for an overseas trading corporation, particularly because, while his predecessor spent a sum of public funds on using the Australian Bank Ltd as a consultant to make recommendations on the formation of an overseas trading corporation, apparently the whole issue has been buried. It is possible that the pet scheme of the now Attorney-General has been dropped by the present Minister for Trade. I would very much like to hear why it has been dropped and why he disagrees with his predecessor. I ask him to give us further details on what he envisages for the future. In the last four or five minutes available to me I turn to my specific concerns about this Bill. Some of those concerns have been raised by previous speakers and one has been addressed by the amendment relating to proscribed countries that the Minister foreshadowed in the House today. The amendment is constructive insofar as it specifically identifies South Africa and eliminates uncertainty for all exporters as to what countries might be picked up by the legislation. On my brief reading of the amendment-I stand to be corrected by the Minister and I hope I will be-there is still an element of retrospectivity. As I read it, it seems to suggest that although for the time being EMDGs will still be paid to those exporting to South Africa, the Government may change its policy and may make that change retrospective to 19 August 1985. I may be wrong in saying that, but from my brief reading of the foreshadowed amendment that seems to be the case. I place on record my view that retrospectivity as a principle is something that should be rejected by all members of this House, particularly when it relates to business, where it creates such uncertainty and, in this instance, complete uncertainty for exporters. However, the Government can count on my sympathy if it introduces some restrictions on the provision of the grant to those trading with South Africa, particularly to those companies which are not adhering to the voluntary code of conduct which was announced earlier this year by the Government. Another concern about this Bill is that the $5,000 floor is too high. I believe that it discriminates against small enterprises, including some businesses in my electorate which have been disadvantaged by that proposal. I will give honourable members an example from the Confederation of Western Australian Industry, which pointed out that five excursion trips to Asia can be made for $5,000. Companies that take advantage of that sort of scheme will be discriminated against by this legislation. I have some concerns about the $20m ceiling, although I accept that in the context of budgetary restraint some sort of ceiling needs to be given very careful consideration. But that ceiling discriminates against companies which wish over time to develop their markets and do not go into a market to try to sell something just on a one-off basis. One of the major reservations I have about this Bill is the date of effect of the introduction of these measures. The National Export Marketing Strategy Panel advocated that any significant changes to these schemes should begin on 1 July 1987 and exporters reasonably could have expected that to have been the case, and, indeed, they did expect it. Unfortunately, there was no phasing-in period. The exporters have been caught out. They were given six days in which to change their plans, which, of course, they could not do. The result was that a number of them were caught out and seriously disadvantaged. I refer to two groups of exporters who have complained: Within the wine industry many exporters have found themselves in considerable difficulties as a result of the sudden and unexpected changes. An exporter of Australian native plants, who comes from my electorate, likewise found himself in considerable difficulty. The Australian Manufacturers Export Council, referring to the short time allowed for changes in the scheme, stated: It is little wonder that the export community is sceptical of action taken in the name of trade promotion but carried out in the context . . . of a cost-cutting exercise. I can sympathise with that because, whilst I appreciate the need for cost cutting, this was done in a hasty and somewhat ill-considered way and the result was great uncertainty and a degree of unhappiness within the business community amongst at least those who are established exporters. In conclusion, I feel that, at a fundamental level, this legislation really does miss the basic point. The basic point was outlined by the Australian Manufacturers Export Council, by the Australian Financial Review, by all industry groups that I know of in Australia and by the Opposition again and again. The Government will not take the hard decisions to make the Australian economy more competitive in international export markets. This is a corporatist government, a government avoiding essential decisions. I believe ultimately that our export industries will be promoted and will prosper only by the change of government and the election of a Liberal government in the future. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(11.42) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill this morning. I have been listening with some interest to the wide-ranging debate that has taken place to date. I use the word `wide-ranging' because I think it has been quite fascinating for members on this side of the House to listen to the internal debate going on in the Opposition between the wets and the dries. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who has just spoken made it perfectly clear that while he was supporting this Bill, no doubt to follow his Party's line on the matter, he had no faith in the measure because it was not a measure that promoted a free market and, therefore, he felt it was a measure that should not have come before the House. We have heard from other Opposition speakers as to why they think the Bill is a very worthwhile measure and should be promoted and is one which will be of considerable assistance to exporters in this nation. It is very interesting to reflect upon the contradictions that exist among members on the Opposition benches and the quite extraordinary policy problems that a Bill such as this presents to them. On the one hand some members of the Opposition, those who, I suppose, one could describe as the wets, would be very anxious to provide assistance to the business community to ensure that it can compete in export markets on fair terms with exporters of other countries, whilst on the other hand the dries, those who believe in a free market and nothing but a pure, free market, want to argue that this Bill is an interference with the free market and that Australian exporters should live or die on their own merits without any assistance from the Government regardless of the sorts of assistance that are given to overseas exporters with whom our exporters are trying to compete. I support this Bill. I think it is a pity in a way that the Government has been forced to amend the export market development grants scheme because of abuse of the existing provisions by exporters and other so-called exporters. Since its inception in 1974 it has provided a very useful service and resource for many Australian companies which have benefited greatly from its assistance. I would just like to note, in passing, that all that assistance has flowed from legislation passed through this Parliament by the Whitlam Labor Government. However, as the Ferris report has pointed out and the departmental review of the scheme has recorded, there have been numerous abuses of it. As the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) pointed out in his second reading speech, section 38 of the principal Act has had to be repealed to curtail abuse and manipulation of the scheme. A more specific set of criteria and conditions have been substituted in its place. However, these are still very generous and preserve the two-year grace period before export-generated earnings begin to affect the levels of grants available. It also provides for exporters to put up the first $5,000 investment in their projects to demonstrate their good faith as well as to illustrate some financial capacity to undertake export. According to the Department of Trade, which administers the scheme, this has become necessary because the drop-out rate of claimants who had expenditure of $5,000 or less was 50 per cent higher than for claimants generally. Unfortunately this change inevitably will cause some hardship for some small exporters. In my own electorate I have a small manufacturer who produces specialised products such as plastic fish tags. He is one of only two such producers in the world. The other I am told is in the United States of America. My constituent will suffer a loss of subsidy which he can little afford. Regrettably these and other changes have been necessary because of the abuse of the scheme which has occurred. Some of these abuses have involved bogus claims or claims by non-genuine participants and excessive and expensive overseas promotional trips. In addition, the scheme has been manipulated by exporters who did not need the assistance it provided. As a result grants will not be available to exporters whose export earnings are in excess of $20m per annum. This is still a very generous level of assistance. This restriction has become necessary because of claims by major established exporters, which have been made at the expense of sunrise export industries. Even worse, many of these claimants are subsidiaries of large transnational corporations which have more than adequate access to in-house marketing which calls into question their need for grants such as those provided under this scheme. When one examines the annual report of the Export Development Grants Board, it becomes obvious just which companies have been collecting the largest grants. Some of the companies which have received substantial grants in 1982-83, for example, were Alcoa of Australia Ltd, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, British Petroleum-at that time it was a British Government corporation-Borg-Warner, CSR Ltd, Elders-IXL, L. M. Ericsson Pty Ltd, the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd, General Motors-Holden's Ltd, Gillette Australia Pty Ltd, Hanna-Barbera, Johnson &Johnson Australia Pty Ltd, Kellogg (Australia) Pty Ltd, Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, Nestles Australia Ltd, Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust.) Pty Ltd and Shell Petroleum. Most of these are large transnational companies or their Australian subsidiaries. It is interesting to note that out of the list of the largest recipients under the scheme only three are companies which are domiciled in this country. As an aside, numerous nominee companies are listed, many of which receive maximum grants. As in other areas, the background of these companies is virtually unidentifiable and points to much needed reform in companies and securities legislation as well as taxation legislation. The results of these abuses and manipulations have been reflected in the dramatic escalation of the cost of the scheme and the massive backlog of claims. Nearly 50 per cent of the claimants dropped out of the scheme after generating no export earnings at all or earnings amounting to a fraction of their grants. On top of this, over 30 per cent of all grants were being paid to 300 claimants-less than 5 per cent of the total-who were generally large exporters, as I have mentioned. It was possible for some of these claimants to receive up to eight times their export earnings. This is at a time of financial constraints in government expenditure, These grants represent a direct subsidy from the taxpayer to business, often for quite questionable reasons. What these abuses and manipulations mean in practice is that genuine small and medium sunrise exporters have not received the assistance that they might have. They mean that scarce government resources have been expended on corporate manipulations. They mean that resources which could have been directed towards those in need, either in these areas or in other areas of government responsibility, have suffered because of the greed and grasping of some businesses. It would be most interesting to hear the views of these people as they have been enjoying first class travel promotional trips with their $50 a day allowance-in effect, more than some people gain from welfare expenditure in a week. I suspect that these people, like tax cheats who have been avoiding and evading their responsibilities to the community, would be among those calling for a reduction in government expenditure on social welfare, education and health budgets. This scheme is necessary and, in many cases, a very good one which assists employment-generating export industries. Many who have benefited from its provisions have been genuine Australian companies with a real need for assistance. It is unfortunate that those who have abused and manipulated the scheme have soured its reputation and prevented assistance being more readily available to those in greatest need. Another very important feature of this legislation is that contained in the new section 10 of the principal Act which provides that companies of and trade with a specific country will not be eligible for grants. This will apply, of course, to the Republic of South Africa. This provision will mean that once a ministerial determination has been made the majority owned subsidiaries of the South African companies and expenditure or exports on development of trade with South Africa will be ineligible for grants under the scheme. These measures are part and parcel of those policy decisions which must and will be applied against South Africa so that it is forced to abolish apartheid. Mr Ian Cameron —What about Russia? Mr DUNCAN —At the appropriate time, you will recall, Australia applied, with the support of the Australian Labor party, sanctions against the Russians in relation to Afghanistan. Our record is one of consistency. We believe that in South Africa this repugnant regime is operating an absolutely abhorrent system and pressure ought to be applied by the international community to ensure that changes take place in that country and that the black majority is given a proper place with proper powers and influence over the running of South Africa. I am pleased to note that measures by democratic countries across the world are leading to the sorts of pressures which are finally bringing the Botha regime to heel, are finally ensuring that measures will be taken by the South African Government to give the black people of that country a fair and just role in its government. In my view and in the view of this Government there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why any Government succour or support should be given to companies which are benefiting from the institutionalised repression of black and coloured workers in South Africa. In some ways under the existing scheme the Government in fact was subsidising the activities of some of those companies. However, this new provision is one which will come into effect, I am told by the Minister for Trade, at a time when pressure can be organised across the board by various members of the international community and it should ensure that further pressure is applied to South Africa to ensure that the small reforms of the past week are continued with and extended, leading finally to majority rule in that country-the struggle for which has gone on for many years. To conclude, the revised scheme that will result from these amendments will greatly reduce the potential for abuse and manipulation of the export market development grants scheme as well as tackle some of the objectionable moral problems with respect to South Africa. It is a worthwhile scheme for sunrise export industries which should benefit Australian companies and encourage Australian exports while reducing the possibilities of abuse. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.53) —It is my pleasure today to speak on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1985. The Opposition supports the Bill although it has an amendment. The Australian Labor Party has sheets of amendments to its ideology in trade, including its South Africa policy. I will come to that later. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) told us all about foreign aid. All I would like to say is that I wish to hell that we spent as much money helping our exporters as we spend on foreign aid. Our foreign aid now approaches nearly $1 billion. Of course we do not know where most of it goes and I do not believe that we should give any pounds, shillings and pence to any other country. I guess there is some reason for giving some produce, particularly produce that is in oversupply, to help some of the less developed countries. It amazes me how the Government has gone through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb and has knocked $80m out of it when at no other time in our history have we needed to export produce more. The only reason we do export is that we happen to import an awful lot of stuff. If we were not importing goods we would not have to export anything. We in Australia continue to live beyond our means and continue to wish to enjoy the good things in life; therefore if that is our philosophy we have to import goods from around the world. In some cases importing goods is important-for example in the case of machine tools-to help build up our secondary industries. It is not Australia's primary industries that lack export incentive, that lack export will. Our primary industries make up an enormous proportion of our export wealth which pays for the luxury goods that we bring into this country. Of course the farmers of this nation have been belted around the ears by the Hawke Government in the two or three years since it has been in office. As I have said before, 50,000 farmers gathered outside this House only a few weeks ago screaming for the dismissal of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and no farmer in this nation supports the policies of the Hawke Government. I also pick up some of the words of the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). I believe that every company in Australia employs Australian workers and so it is in our interests to encourage all companies to get off their backsides and get out in the world and chase the markets available in order to increase our exports. This Bill encourages us to do that and I do not think that we can ever spend enough money in this area. Our balance of trade position is deteriorating day by day. The current balance of trade account for 1985-86 is estimated to be in the red to the tune of $11 billion. It has increased since 1981-82 from $8.8 billion to an expected $11.8 billion at the end of this financial year. It is expected to remain at that level. If ever we are to pick up our standard of living again we have to be out selling, and selling as strongly as possible. The scheme provides a cash grant, that is taxed, to companies prepared to get into overseas markets, research, development and advertising, and it helps pay for air fares and provides an allowance of $50 a day. There has been some nitpicking in regard to air fares in that people can travel only tourist class and business class. I suggest to the Government that most companies allow their executives to travel first class and often it is in an aeroplane, when one is sitting next to someone perhaps for four or five hours going from A to B around the world, that a trade deal can be done. Mr Peter Fisher —How do the Ministers go, I wonder? Mr IAN CAMERON —The Ministers go first class. I have no doubt that the Minister for Trade would go first class when he travels. Mr McGauran —To China. Mr IAN CAMERON —He has just come back from China. Maybe Ministers take VIP aircraft and do not get to meet anybody while they are travelling. When we back benchers travel overseas occasionally it is important that we sit next to and talk to people from all around the world, and of course we are continually promoting our electorates and our country. So there has been some nitpicking in this area and it should be looked at. The incentive scheme obviously has had some fault in it and it has been turned around a little and put back into place. It is a pity that it is restricted to companies that have gross earnings of only $20m. As I have said previously, I believe that it ought to be available to all companies in Australia, not just those with small markets. It is not just through small businesses that we will pick up jobs but through big ones. It is often the big companies that can get out and find a better market and can employ an extra 500 people whereas the small companies are able to pick up only two or three people. Mr Price —Not the small business? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, the small business. They all count; they should all be encouraged. I cannot understand why the Industries Assistance Commission report in 1982 recommended that the scheme be terminated. I find that unbelievable; on the other hand, the IAC sometimes brings down some pretty incredible reports. I am pleased that both governments have seen fit not to terminate this scheme. Of course the tourist industry has been dropped out of the new scheme but another new program is to be introduced. I look forward to supporting that legislation because Queensland has been to the forefront of tourism. It was the first State to set up a corporation to go out and encourage tourism. The biggest growth industry in the world is tourism. When one travels one is amazed by the amount of overcrowding at airports. Aeroplanes have to line up behind 15 to 20 jumbo jets, in some cases, before they can leave the strip. Mr McGauran —When is that replacement scheme coming in? Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not know. I was talking to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) this morning. He is hoping to bring it in soon. A couple of months ago he made us all sorts of promises. I am now wondering when it will come in. Mr McGauran —He announced it on 16 May. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right. It is still not in place. Mr Blunt —A long gestation period. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes. We are certainly wondering what is going on in this area. The Government is not giving enough support to the tourism industry. The airline industry needs deregulation and charter aircraft should be allowed to come into this country. As we know, some licences have been granted for flights to Cairns. I would like to see many more of these licences granted. This would free up the tourism industry. What really staggers me is the ideology involved in the question of trade with South Africa. It is incredible. It is not the South African workers who suffer from embargoes of trade; it is the Australian workers. They are the people who are put out of jobs because we are not manufacturing products we can sell to that country. It is not the South African workers. It is the workers here in Australia. Mr McGauran —Have you been there? Mr IAN CAMERON —Of course I have been there. I have had a look at the country. South Africa is the powerhouse of southern Africa. But what are we seeing? We are seeing countries wishing to destroy it, to allow communism to take it over. We have seen starvation in Ethiopia over the last few months. However, it is nothing compared with what we will see if South Africa goes under. The starvation in Ethiopia is nothing compared with what we would see if South Africa were forced into bankruptcy by trade sanctions, et cetera, and the whole place were taken over and subverted. The northern African countries are all socialist. They are all starving. South Africa feeds them all. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has come into the chamber. He is always hard and fast on South Africa. I say to the Minister: What about the illegal pickets outside the South African Embassy here in Canberra? What hypocrites we are to be telling South Africa what to do. There is a mob of no-hopers outside the Embassy. Two Commonwealth policemen are tied up there 24 hours a day protecting the people inside. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! I suggest that the honourable member give consideration to returning to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, this has a lot to do with the Bill. There are six or seven pages of amendments which the Minister for Trade has brought in at a late hour in order to withdraw the subsidy on trade to South Africa. It is a disgrace. What a hypocritical stand this Government takes. The pickets, the threat to Australians outside the South African Embassy and the contravening of the Geneva convention that allows free access to embassies are a disgrace. Because of the unions the embassy cannot get any mail or fuel delivered. People are camped illegally on a reserve. It is disgusting. I would like to think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as a true Australian, would do something about getting rid of these reprobates and show a bit of statesmanship. The coalition supports the embargo on arms sales to South Africa, but we certainly do not support the general trade embargo. We are all for helping establish trade links. I do not believe we would get anywhere with such an embargo. It has never been proved that any country in the world is helped by completely isolating it and trying to tear it down by not being prepared to trade with it. It is amazing what happened last time. Countries continued to trade with South Africa. I have mentioned our external debt, which was $24 billion, or 14 per cent of gross domestic product, at the end of 1983. At the end of this year, it will be $52 billion, which is 25 per cent of GDP. That is an enormous increase in our debt structure. The current account deficit is now $10 billion. Europe subsidises its trade enormously. The farmers of Australia are battling against the European Common Market with its enormous system of government and its structure of subsidies. Billions of dollars go into dumping beef, grain and dairy products-you name them-on our traditional markets in this part of the world. There is no way we can compete other than to get the Government to help us trade. The United States of America is just as much at fault. The American Government gives enormous subsidies not only to its farmers but also to its manufacturing industries. That makes it very difficult for us to compete. Not only do those governments put us at a disadvantage but also the Australian Government does the same thing. Let us take Mudginberri, for instance. That small company, established by an Australian, wishes to employ Australian workers, people who are prepared to work for a contract rate. It has a market established with Taiwan. It is selling beef. But what does this crowd do? It will not abide by the law. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has made a decision. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sat back and pooh-poohed any suggestion that the Government should support the Commission and see that the law of the land is enforced. Mudginberri is a classic example of the sort of people this Bill is designed to support. But the Government which is introducing it will not give those people any support at all. The whole union movement in Australia is doing the same thing. We lose contracts. The Japanese will no longer buy any grain from New South Wales. The Foreign Minister sits opposite with his head hung in shame. New South Wales has a Labor Government. The Japanese will not buy a tonne of grain from the New South Wales export wheat authorities. Queensland is the only place from which the Japanese will take wheat. These are the sorts of things that we feel ought to be fixed. Of course we should not expect too much from a Labor Government in Canberra or one in New South Wales- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that the Bill under discussion is not a wheat Bill. It is the Export Market- Mr IAN CAMERON —It is export, it is trade, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is the Export Market Development- Mr IAN CAMERON —The Labor Government of New South Wales- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. The honourable member will not continue speaking while the Chair is addressing the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. This is the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But as a farmer and one who represents the great electorate of Maranoa, which exports approximately 80 per cent of its grain, I feel that I have to voice my opinion on some of these subjects. I conclude by giving some support to some of the companies in my electorate that are doing some of these things for Australia. We have the O'Phee Industries at Pittsworth. Bill O'Phee's company makes trailers. It makes some of the best trailers in Australia. Company respresentatives have been to China. It is selling trailers to China. It manufactures 20 trailers in a knocked down form. It is packaging them in that form, sending them to China and the Chinese are assembling them. Obviously there is an enormous market for them. The company expects to sell a thousand of these trailers in the next two years. That is what it is all about. I certainly support what the company is doing. There is Wilson and Wilson Grains, run by David Wilson in Dalby. It exports 1,200 tonnes of sorghum and chick peas to Singapore. A big market is opening up in India for chick peas. There is Elders company and the grain growers of Toowoomba. I am talking about an awful lot of grain. These people are now responsible for exporting most of it. Markets are opening up in different parts of the world. They are sending a delegation to China. They have been to Eastern Europe. The export expansion scheme is being used by them to go to the mid-Americas to sell sorghum and wheat, to South America to sell barley and to Eastern Europe to sell barley and sorghum. They are also going to North Africa, where Egypt is buying sorghum, the Sudan and some of the other countries we see on television which are starving and which do not, under their socialist regimes, seem to be able to feed themselves. We efficient Australian farmers have to grow the food for them. However, the Opposition is prepared to support this Bill. No doubt some changes will be made when the Liberal and National parties are returned to government at the next election. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(12.10) —One cannot discuss the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill without acknowledging the work undertaken by Bill Ferris, the Chairman of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, and his panel members who reported on the lifting of Australia's performance as an exporter of manufactures and services. I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work of that panel, the majority of whose recommendations have been incorporated in this Bill. The Government, in introducing this amendment Bill, will ensure that encouragement and incentives will be provided to the small and medium exporters of Australian products and services. It is anticipated that the successful implementation of the amendments will improve this nation's standing in overseas markets. I listened with interest to the contributions made by honourable members opposite in their lukewarm support of this Bill. I noted that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) centred his remarks around the industry that he said he knew most about, the sugar industry, whereas the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) felt that the real contribution he could make was to indicate the difficulties experienced by the jam manufacturers if they exclude sugar from jam. No doubt those small to medium exporters and manufacturers who were waiting for the Opposition to make a real contribution on this Bill will be sadly disappointed. They have every reason to be sadly disappointed because the Opposition is still defending the rorts and abuses that the previous system encouraged and allowed. It is an absolute disgrace that firms could receive up to $200,000 per annum without exporting one scintilla of a product or service. Shame on the previous Government for having allowed that situation to continue! I notice that honourable members opposite did not quote very extensively from the Ferris report. I would like to redress that situation. Department of Trade research covering the period 1973 to 1983 has shown that Australia's export performance has not been good. It has shown that Australia's share of world trade in the same period declined from 1.79 per cent to 1.25 per cent-a fall of 30 per cent. Whilst world exports grew by 12 per cent, Australia's exports grew by only 8 per cent. Australia's penetration of world markets declined. Of the 65 countries for which data is available, Australia's share decreased in 48 countries while it increased in only 17. Growth in exports over the period was insufficient to arrest a decline of 10 per cent in the real level of imports that could be purchased by Australia's exports. The panel reported that research had shown that the main reason for Australia's poor trade growth was that our exports are concentrated in the slowest growing segments of international trade-bulk agricultural commodities and minerals. The outlook for these segments is not improving. Incidentally, I wish to acknowledge the efficiency of those segments. Despite the recovery of the world economy, commodity prices remain depressed. In the medium to longer term growth in import demand for agricultural products is expected to slow because of agricultural protectionism, lower population growth in Australia's major markets, debt problems in many developing countries and slower economic growth in key import regions. The immediate outlook for the mining sector does not suggest an overall, major recovery from current low prices reflecting structural imbalances between supply and demand, although some growth is likely to come from this sector through an increased volume of exports. I noticed in the latest figures released this week that this has occurred. I think we ought to remember that manufactures is the fastest growing area of world trade and it is much less subject to restrictions on market access than agriculture. Hence Australia's poor performance in exporting manufactures does not flow from demand factors but rather from the uncompetitiveness of our manufacturing base and the absence of a sufficiently outward looking commitment to growth in export marketing. Both these problems are within our power to solve. High export orientation lessens discrimination in resource allocation, allowing resources to move in line with their productivity. Industry development will then follow trends more closely in actual international demand rather than propped up domestic demands. Economies of scale can be secured through the expansion of markets allowing producers to operate at levels of output higher than could be justified by a reliance on the domestic market alone. This is particularly important for smaller economies such as Australia's, where the domestic market does not allow world competitive economies of scale. Furthermore, exports encourage a more dynamic and competitive attitude in industry. Producers must adjust to market changes and deal with international competition. The panel said in its report that over the past decade successive governments have supported the concept of a more export oriented manufacturing sector but, shying away from the simple-minded solution of dropping tariffs and letting the market choose, they have tended to do nothing at all. I am afraid that that is the sorry record of honourable members opposite. The panel was encouraged to note the action taken by the Hawke Labor Government and, in particular, the fact that it accorded manufacturing industry the highest priority in its second term of office. I say from the outset that industry policy is not one of philosophy, wet, dry or indifferent. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the farming sector? Mr PRICE —The honourable member should go back to South Africa. Industry policy is not one of philosophy, wet, dry or indifferent but rather one of designing and fine tuning policies to ensure that Australia's domestic and export performance is lifted dramatically. I believe that these amendments will assist in that direction. All too often there has been a lack of enterprise by private enterprise. I see that as a continuing problem in terms of lifting our export performance. Whilst slashing wages may have some appeal for the dries in the Liberal Party of Australia or other honourable members opposite, there is ample evidence that this approach will not rectify the underlying causes. The main aim of the export market development grants scheme is to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and to develop overseas markets for goods and specified services bearing the `made in Australia' label. It is not merely a subsidy for industry but also an encouragement to Australian exporters presently operating and potential new exporters. The amendment Bill seeks to update the existing scheme and so enhance its effectiveness. This Bill will be of major benefit to small and medium sized firms, which this Government is at pains to look after and encourage. The scheme will provide financial incentives in the form of taxable grants for eligible expenditure incurred on overseas market development and research. The export market development grant scheme was introduced in July 1974 to replace the export incentive scheme and the export development allowances scheme. These schemes were considered to be costly to operate and appeared to benefit mainly a few large companies. The Government also questioned the fact that grant eligibility was based on what claimants spent, not on what they earned by way of exports. When the grants scheme was introduced in 1974 two rates of taxable grants were payable. A premium rate of 85 per cent was payable for eligible expenditure incurred in new markets on Australian sponsored promotions and on subscriptions or levies paid to approved associations. A standard rate of 60 per cent was paid for all other eligible expenditure. In respect of each grant year there was a ceiling on payments of $100,000 or 10 per cent of export earnings. In 1978 this scheme was amended. The two-pronged grant rate was replaced by a single 70 per cent grant rate and a 10 per cent export earning rate was replaced by a $25,000 export earning requirement. The scheme was extended to include the travel and tourist industry and because of the difficulty in measuring export earnings from tourism the export earning requirement was not applicable. A minimum expenditure of $5,000 was to be applied in its place. The scheme was still to be administered by the Export Development Grants Board but its decisions were subject to review by the Administrative Review Council. In July 1982 the scheme was again amended. Benefits were extended to the consultancy and the construction industry and the accommodation sector of the tourism industry. Grant ceilings were increased to $200,000 per year, which included a promotional visits allowance of $50 per day, to a maximum of 10 consecutive days, for overseas promotional trips. This amendment Act was to operate until June 1988. However, the high cost of the scheme and the way in which it was continually abused when honourable members opposite were in government led to this Government's decision to amend it again. Such amendments were based on the findings of the Ferris report, chaired by Bill Ferris, and on evaluations carried out by the Department of Trade. Both these parties concurred that the existing scheme was badly designed, needed to be tightened up and needed to have its administrative procedures reviewed. Both parties also agreed that there was an urgent need to have the backlog of claims for grants removed. The main deficiencies in the existing scheme were as follows: Fifty per cent of claimants dropped out after the first three years. Recipients could obtain, as I said earlier, $200,000 per annum without any export earnings. Recipients had to earn only $25,000 after the first three years to be eligible for further grants. As a result, some firms could receive grants of up to eight times the level of their export earnings. Large companies were receiving one-third of the total EMDG payments, while their needs were questionable. As a result of such inefficiencies, payments to claimants in the 1984-85 period rose by 120 per cent, while the number of claimants rose by 40 per cent. Subsequent underfunding by successive governments resulted in a backlog of claims. To try to counter this and to reduce the number of backlog claims, the Government made available funds of $54m over and above the $125m outlayed in the 1984-85 Budget. This has reduced the backlog to a more normal level. I also want to express my support and encouragement for the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission being set up by the Minister in January 1986. There is no doubt that this Government is determined to do all it can by way of Government assistance to assist our exporters and to encourage an increasing growth in exports, which will undoubtedly lead to more jobs and to a better and stronger economy. The major changes that will be introduced in the Bill include that any Australian resident carrying on a business in Australia who has eligible expenditure resulting from developing an export market for goods manufactured in this country will be eligible for a grant. Other services eligible for grants will be overseas services provided in fields such as technical services, architecture, construction, engineering, economic research and planning; technical and advisory services provided in the field of mining and mineral exploration; advisory services applied in relation to an overseas based primary industry project; technical services in the field of transport; other services including computer maintenance, education, hospital and medical services, and those who have taken out insurance premiums to protect Australian patents. As has already been mentioned, tourism is being excluded from the Bill but will be strongly supported by a new program, the tourism overseas promotion scheme. If any government can claim to have assisted the tourist industry, without a doubt it is this Hawke Government, which has done so much to turn around the tourism industry and to create 50,000 jobs during its term in office. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.23) —The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill seeks to rationalise government expenditure on export promotion and to make it more efficient. Such principles must be applauded. However, we have to look at the rhetoric and the reality of the present trade policy. Let us face the fact that last year Australia suffered a $10.2 billion current account deficit on trade. It is a matter of great concern; Australia cannot go on living beyond its means in that way. This step, although it will save the Government some money, has to be taken in light of the reality of what is happening in our trading scene. Last night I read to the Parliament a telex which came in about bans now placed by the Transport Workers Union of Australia on the export of fresh meat products from our two major airports; in fact, I think airports right around Australia are now affected. Meat, which has maximum Australian input-in fact some of it 100 per cent value added-and which goes into supermarket packs-is being held up by the Transport Workers Union. It is a situation of one unionist killing another. Members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union are complaining bitterly about what is happening at Mudginberri and about live sheep exports. But, when they have the opportunity, through the actions of other exporters, to export from Australia a 100 per cent value added product, this is what happens. A Japanese person telexed one of his colleagues over here and this is what he said: . . . all parties concerned here a hell of a lot of nerver/money/time simply because of a strike whose cause has totally nothing to do with an unbelievable for the consumers in Japan. . . . We don't have words to express our fury but more its just sad to see a strike originated in a wayback-- I think he meant backward- country in the supply country can so easily damage reliability of Australia as meat supply country. We really hope she wud produce more meat than strikes. That is the real story of what is happening with our trade policy at this very moment. It is an indictment of this Government that it seems to be powerless to stop that sort of thing. At this very moment the coal workers of Queensland are on strike to try to teach the Queensland Government a lesson. That strike is costing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Mr TUCKEY —I will move a motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want to stop me talking about exports. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I remind him that while he may have suggested at the start of his remarks that now is the time to look at the rhetoric and reality of Government trade policy, it is not appropriate for him to range as wide as he has been doing in his remarks to the House on this Bill, which is the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take your ruling as it comes along. I am quite happy at some stage to move dissent from it, which is my right under the Standing Orders. The point I was making is that I have listened to the debate and I have listened to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) talk about the sugar industry. I have also listened to other speakers. The reality is that we are talking about export market development. If people are denying us the chance to export $10m worth of coal from Queensland today, I can assure honourable members that that has something to do with export market development. Last month we had a $128m surplus in our current account deficit. We find that that was principally due to coal exports being up by 15 per cent. That is the situation with which we are confronted. There are many things we can do to help export market development. At this very moment in Australia the Lincoln Electric Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd is denied export opportunity to the Arab states. That is because of a total misunderstanding of what export market development might set out to address. As a result of the misunderstanding, Lincoln Electric has been classified by the Arabs as having some connection with the Ford Lincoln motor company which happens to manufacture cars in Japan. Consequently that Australian company, employing 400 Australian workers, cannot get exports into the Arab Gulf states. It is costing the firm $8m in turnover and the Department of Trade cannot fix that. This Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) cannot fix that. Perhaps he should get his tax consultant on to it. That is export market development. Fancy our Trade Department and our Trade Minister not being able to fix a simple problem of misunderstanding between international companies! Why cannot the Department go to the kings of those countries, if necessary, and fix that problem? My direct concerns with this Bill relate to the $5,000 per annum threshold for eligible expenditure. Of course, this hits the people whom I represent in this Parliament, the small business community. Clearly, the sorts of thresholds which this Government has introduced, such as a $6,000 per annum customs warehouse licence, a flat charge against very small operators as well as the large ones, the $50,000 per annum limit on research and development or the 150 per cent tax deduction threshold, hit little people. Under our export market policy, if a producer of honey cannot export 17 tonnes in a year, this Government will not let him export any. If that is export market development, I will go he! That is the height of the ridiculous. All this Bill does is to disregard and disadvantage small business. It shows that this Government hates small business. All those examples I have given are attacks on the small business community. Similarly, the discontinuance of the promotional visit allowance of $50 a day for the first 10 days is a huge burden for small business people. One of the small businessmen in my electorate has written to me and said: We wish to express our concern over the Government's decision to stop the $50/day overseas promotional visit allowance. . . . . We have been advised time and time again that we cannot expect to achieve success overnight and that regular visits were essential . . . We are dismayed to learn that the promotional allowance has been discontinued. The business has been asked to take part in an exhibition in China and other countries, but the costs of accommodation in those areas will preclude that small businessman from attending. We find also that the measure to be used is the moneys actually spent instead of expenditure incurred. This ignores the fact that advertising in foreign countries has to be ordered up to nine months in advance. Small businesses can no longer afford the uncertainty of making that sort of commitment with no knowledge of whether they will get paid. With this five-day turnaround, who in small business with limited resources could stand up to the risk of ordering $50,000 or $60,000 worth of advertising? I know one small manufacturer with a small business award who now cannot risk that money without knowing for certain that he will be paid. There is no longer any certainty because the Government has demonstrated how quickly it might change its mind. The businessman will not commit himself nine months down the track unless he has a guarantee that he will be paid for expenditure incurred, not expenditure already spent. The small business tourist operator does not know where he is. Like everybody else, because of the tax situation in Australia, he is totally in the dark, totally uncertain, with no hope of knowing where he is going. Another problem is import competition caused by the public servants who like to play it safe. The Commander telephone system which is all around Australia has an Australian equivalent which is exported to 23 countries, but we had to go to Japan, to STC, to get that done. When will the Government decide that it might do something about that? With all the criticism of privatisation, if we stopped Telecom at the front fence, that decision would not be made by bureaucrats playing it safe; it would be made by people who would buy the best and cheapest product. There are many other things that I would like to address, but I would have thought that the Minister for Trade, being the honourable member for Fremantle, would have known that the $20m limit on export earnings will be a substantial blow to his own constituents in the crayfishing industry because they have much larger turnovers than that. They need that assistance, yet the Government has given $150m in research assistance to the major car industries. That seems to be all right, but the Minister cannot help his own people. I am aware of the time constraints and the arrangement made, so I will conclude my remarks there. I think it is a great misfortune that the Government has sought to put a time limit on debate on a Bill of this nature when so much obvious interest has been shown by honourable members and there has been great interest from the community in general. My final words are to ask the Minister to explain why the Government hates small businesses and why this Bill is so clearly aimed at disadvantaging them. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(12.33) —in reply-It remains for me just to thank those honourable members who have contributed to the debate. A number of questions of detail have been raised which I can take up by way of correspondence if honourable members wish those matters to be pursued. I would like the debate now to proceed so that we can handle the Government's amendments in the Committee stage. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken together. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.35) —I gave warning in my speech on the second reading that I would address some of these provisions. I turn to clause 2 and ask the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) whether he will amend that clause to change the date of effect to 30 June 1985, for the reasons we have mentioned: The uncertainty and short notice and the fact that we believe that the cost to revenue would not be any more than compounding the expenditure up front and not as much in terms of the real outlay. The cost of the extension to 30 June, which is only a deferral, would be only another $8.6m. It is a very important point. As I say, this is a deferral rather than an actual revenue item. I ask the Minister whether he can do something in that regard. Clause 4 of this Bill excludes all reference to the tourist industry. Whilst we were told in the announcement in May that there would be a Bill to cover the tourist industry, that Bill is not before us. The activities of the tourist industry could be excluded from this scheme from now until any time in the future. We believe that the tourist industry should remain covered by this Bill until that interlocking Bill is in the House and the industry knows that something is following through. I refer to the interpretation in clause 5 in relation to acquittal. How is acquittal to be defined by the Department of Trade when making arrangements to give a grant to an exporter? I mentioned this point in my speech on the second reading. In connection with the tourist industry, we have estimated that, if the tourist industry were to remain in the framework of this Bill, it would cost another $12m. I believe that the tourist industry is entitled to an answer as to whether it will be covered by a future Bill or scheme. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(12.37) —In clarification of one point I mention that the tourism overseas promotion scheme will not require to be implemented by legislation; it will be implemented by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It will operate from 20 May, the date on which this scheme terminates for those in the tourist industry. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(12.38) —I rise to speak on the matters raised by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in relation to the impact of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill on the tourism industry. When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced the first instalment of the Budget on 16 May he said that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) would be bringing forward a package on financial assistance. On 20 May tourism was eliminated from the export market development grants scheme. On 19 June, in the absence of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism-overseas, as usual-the Acting Minister, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), announced that the tourism overseas promotion scheme would become operational. I reiterate those dates: On 16 May it was announced that tourism would be out of the EMDG scheme from 20 May. On 19 June the Minister for Transport, the Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, said that the TOP scheme would contain certain provisions which would assist the tourism industry. It is now 13 September. The TOP scheme is not operational; no assistance has been made available to the tourism industry; and tourism operators do not know what is contained in this scheme or how it will operate. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is requiring operators to jump through hoops by submitting provisional application forms. There are no guidelines or operating instructions. The reduction in the assistance to tourism is considerable. The EMDG scheme was worth $9.3m in the previous financial year; the TOP scheme is proposed to provide assistance of only $5m. This does not take into account the impact of the reduced value of the Australian dollar, which today stands at US68c. This Government has dumped tourism. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has indicated that he is unable to administer his Department effectively because the tourist industry for which he is exclusively responsible is sitting around in limbo waiting for the Minister and his Department to come forward with a detailed scheme to replace the scheme from which it was excluded on 20 May. The situation is totally unsatisfactory. Tourism, which this Government claims to support and for which it claims a great future in Australia, is getting no support or consideration. It is an absolute disgrace. Clauses agreed to. Clause 9 (Insertion of new section before section 11-10. Proscribed countries) Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(12.41) —I move: Clause 9, pages 7 and 8, omit proposed section 10, insert the following proposed section: Determinations in relation to the Republic of South Africa ``10. (1) The Minister may, by determination in writing published in the Gazette, declare the Republic of South Africa to have been, with effect from 19 August 1985, a proscribed country and, upon the publication of the determination in the Gazette, that country shall be taken to have been and to be, for the purposes of this section, a proscribed country during the period commencing on that day and ending on the day on which that determination is revoked. ``(2) Where the Minister has made a determination under sub-section (1), the Minister may, at any time while that determination is in force, by another determination in writing published in the Gazette, declare that expenditure of a specified kind incurred during the period to which the determination under this sub-section relates, being expenditure that relates, directly or indirectly, to trade with the Republic of South Africa, is not, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, eligible expenditure for the purposes of this Act, but the Minister shall not make such a determination in respect of expenditure the liability to pay which arose under an agreement or arrangement entered into before the commencement of that period. ``(3) Where the Minister has made a determination under sub-section (1), the Minister may, at any time while that determination is in force, by another determination in writing published in the Gazette, declare that consideration of a specified kind received during the period to which the determination under this sub-section relates, being consideration that relates, directly or indirectly, to trade with the Republic of South Africa, is not, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, export earnings for the purposes of this Act, but the Minister shall not make such a determination in respect of consideration received under an agreement or arrangement entered into before the commencement of that period. ``(4) Where the Minister has made a determination under sub-section (1), the Minister may, at any time while that determination is in force, by another determination in writing published in the Gazette, provide that expenditure of a specified kind incurred during the period to which the determination under this sub-section relates by persons included in a specified class or classes of persons is not, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, eligible expenditure for the purposes of this Act, but the Minister shall not make such a determination in respect of expenditure the liability to pay which arose under an agreement or arrangement entered into before the commencement of that period. ``(5) Where the Minister has made a determination under sub-section (1), the Minister may, at any time while that determination is in force, by another determination in writing published in the Gazette, declare that consideration of a specified kind received during the period to which the determination under this sub-section relates by persons included in a specified class or classes of persons is not, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, export earnings for the purposes of this Act, but the Minister shall not make such a declaration in respect of consideration received under an agreement or arrangement entered into before the commencement of that period. ``(6) The classes of persons that may be specified in a determination under sub-section (4) or (5) are- (a) nationals or citizens of the Republic of South Africa; (b) companies having a share capital the majority of the shares in which are beneficially owned by nationals or citizens of that country; (c) partnerships a majority of thge members of which are nationals or citizens of that country; or (d) persons, companies or partnerships having some other substanial connection with that country. ``(7) The classes of persons that may be specified by virtue of paragraph (6) (d) are not limited, in any way, by paragraphs (6) (a), (b) and (c). ``(8) The making of a determination under sub- section (2), (3), (4) or (5) shall not be taken to prevent the making of a further determination, or further determinations, under that sub-section while that first-mentioned determination is in force. ``(9) A reference in sub-section (2), (3), (4) or (5) to the period to which the determination under that sub-section relates is a reference to the period commencing on a day that is specified in the determination, being- (a) in the case of a determination under sub-section (2) or (3)-a day not earlier than the day on which the determination is made; and (b) in the case of a determination under sub-section (4) or (5)-a day not earlier than 19 August 1985, and ending on the day on which the determination is revoked or the day on which the determination under sub-section (1) is revoked, whichever first occurs.''. I mentioned on the resumption of the second reading debate the reason why the Government was moving this amendment. I shall recapitulate briefly. We took the view that the clause as it is written in the Bill before the House is too wide. What we had in mind was simply to restrict the operation of this scheme in relation to trade with South Africa with effect from 19 August. This restriction applies to that group of persons and companies who are South African in origin and who at the moment have or may have entitlements under this scheme. As from 19 August they will no longer have access to the scheme. I will make a determination to that effect to declare the Republic of South Africa for that purpose. Secondly, this clause gives me power to make a determination in respect of the entitlements under this scheme to others-Australians-who may be engaged in trade or at least eligible expenditure with the Republic of South Africa. The Government has no plans to make that determination at this point, but the reason for including this provision is that if there is mounting international effort towards imposing restrictions on trade with South Africa-this is a definite possibility-this provision would give the Government power to restrict the operation of the scheme in respect of expenditure under this scheme which is related to trade with South Africa. We feel that it is necessary to restrict the operation of these two provisions to the Republic of South Africa so that there is no suggestion that we are thinking of restricting the operation of the scheme to countries other than South Africa. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). This provision is not retrospective because in respect of Australian companies which may have an entitlement under this scheme any determination relating to their expenditure in South Africa or relating to trade with that country would be prospective, not retrospective. The date, 19 August, relates to South African firms which will no longer have an entitlement under the scheme in accordance with the announcement made on that date. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.45) —The Opposition indicated at the outset of this debate that it would not oppose the provisions in this Bill because the legislation relates to expenditure cuts. However, we feel now that as an amendment has been made to that original decision we have the right to indicate to the Government our policy in this regard. That policy has been enunciated within the last three weeks. We believe that this Bill is about Australian industry, Australian exporters and Australian workers. It tries to give some incentive to these people to produce for the wider world for the benefit of all Australians. We have said that we do not believe that trade sanctions are the answer to a political crisis in South Africa. In that regard a trade sanction can only disadvantage Australian exporters whom this Bill is designed to help. When one talks about the Australian exporter, one talks about all those service industries, the people working within them, the families that depend on them and also the earning of very precious overseas dollars for Australia. We see this amendment as being very specific. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has said that he will make a determination and perhaps that will give us the opportunity to say again what we feel about the South African situation. We will wait to see how the Minister proceeds in that regard. On the other side of the coin, trade sanctions against South Africa will be to the disadvantage of those people living in South Africa, they will be denied products and imports that are required. Such sanctions will hurt those people who are being hurt politically at the moment more than it will hurt others. Furthermore, the South African Government itself, in considering its balance of payments, might only applaud being forced into a position of more regulation to produce for themselves. Further down the line this would be to the detriment of those people who are already being politicised. In that regard we hold firm to the policy announcements of the last three weeks. We will oppose the making of this determination and the singling out of South Africa in this regard. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(12.48) —I mention again clause 12 which sets the maximum and minimum limits. This point was stressed in the second reading debate and mention was made of the effect of $20m maximum. We believe that this is not the proper way to exclude international companies. I do not believe that everything the Government said about international companies in the second reading speech was appropriate. It would have us believe that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is a multinational and that it is not good for Australia. But BHP is a very important part of our export trade and the trade figures for the last month were boosted only because of the influence of the oil transfers made in that month's transactions. One can also look at Utah, which was once described as a multinational, from the point of view of the mining expertise that it can give to the rest of the world. Of course, that $20m limit will attack those companies. I do not believe that serious consideration has been given to those proper Australian companies which are employing Australian labour and which want to penetrate overseas markets. The lower limit of $5,000 denies many small businesses. However, we can see the appropriateness of that amount; one does not want to be tinkering around with petty cash. Nevertheless, opportunities are being lost and we believe that the Government still has time to look once again at clause 12 with a view to removing the limits in both areas. Our costing in connection with the exclusion of the $20m upper limit would be $10m on current figures and on removing the $5,000 lower limit would be $14m. We give those figures in voicing our concern at the exclusions made within the Bill. I turn to clause 14. Although it is not generally applicable, there is here a carry forward arrangement for export earnings within the first period up to 30 June, but there is no suggestion in the Bill that that allows a carry forward of grant entitlements. Again, I believe that representations have been submitted to the Minister and we would suggest that an appropriate amendment would be to include after clause 14, clause 14A if the Government deems fit to do so. Also we suggest that at the end of clause 14 a new clause 14A should be inserted carrying forward the entitlements: notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act, whether whole or part of the export earnings resulting from eligible expenditure has not accrued or will not accrue to the claimant in the same period as the period during which the expenditure was incurred, the eligible expenditure may be carried forward and the grant payable at the rate applicable to the year in which the grant was claimed. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.50 to 2 p.m. Mr McARTHUR —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Given the Prime Minister's strong personal endorsement last night for a national identity card, will the Minister advise the taxpayers of Australia and this House of the estimated costs and net savings involved and the number of public servants required to establish and maintain such a system, as well as give an assurance that the card itself will not be open to fraudulent misuse and will not jeopardise the privacy and freedom of individual Australians? Mr HURFORD —I listened to that long catalogue of questions put to me by the honourable member in relation to this matter. He is anticipating discussions which are taking place within the Government. At an appropriate time an announcement will be made about this issue and all of those questions will be answered. Mr GEAR —Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government continues to believe that an assets test is essential to maintaining a needs based welfare system? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. I say without equivocation to the House that the assets test is a logical and necessary expression of any genuine commitment to the pursuit of a needs based welfare system. There is the clear statement by me, on behalf of the Government. The time has come when we have to ask of the Leader of the Opposition: What is the position of honest John? We are aware of the fact that when he was Treasurer under the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, he had conflicting principles when it came to whether the truth should be told. He asked the then Prime Minister whether he could tell the truth about the prospect of a $9 billion deficit-in one sense he may be open to congratulations for this-but out of the two conflicting principles, loyalty to the Leader prevailed so he was not honest about the prospect. Under the next Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia for the time being, Mr Peacock, the now Leader of the Opposition had a view about the assets test but he gave into the principle of loyalty and did not come out publicly and explain that he did not agree with his Leader. But now the Leader of the Opposition cannot have any conflict of loyalty. He is the Leader. He does not have to defer his own honest and rational assessment of what is appropriate to some loyalty to some leader. Therefore, not only the Government but also the people of this country are entitled to put a very direct question to the Leader of the Opposition. Will he be honest and come out and tell the people of Australia what he really believes on the question of the assets test? By way of background it is necessary-and I regret it very much-to refer to that well-known document, the Valder report, because it goes to the heart of this question: Is the Leader of the Opposition going to be honest? Honourable members will recall what Mr Valder, the Federal President of the Liberal Party, had to say on this issue. He said: So if you are really talking about reducing government spending, it is all very well to say we will privatise this and we will do that, and fiddle about. That's all fiddling with the edges. If you are really going to make any big reduction in government spending . . . that's social welfare. He then went on to say- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I know honourable members opposite do not like to hear the truth, but they are going to hear it. They will have to face up to the question of whether they are going to have an honest leader or not. Mr Valder went on to say: I think our Party is very conscious of the need to do that, but look at what has happened over even the assets test which, if I can again be a little candid-- he does not want to be too candid- on your private program, was a very small step in that direction. That is the Federal President of the Liberal Party saying, in respect of the assets test, that it is right but it is only a very small step in the right direction. Honourable members will remember how the Federal President of the Liberal Party finished up on this issue. He said: I would like to see them-- that, my friends, is you, the Federal Government- do the very hard things that they are going to get into trouble about. Because electorally, that is the fact of the matter. They are not easy to do. So I have said many times, you know, let the Labor Party get on implementing the more necessary, but perhaps less popular parts of our policy. That is the statement of the Federal President. I take up the time of the House just to give that background. But we do not have to ask the question in these terms: Will the Federal Leader of the Opposition embrace the honesty of the Federal President of the Party? I ask you, Mr Speaker, and the members of the House to look at what the position of the Federal Leader of the Opposition is. I do not know whether members of the House have in fact looked at this week's issue of the Bulletin, but this is what is in it: Just where does Honest John stand, for example, on the assets test? That was the question. The author, Mr Farmer, went on to say: It's a question to which Hawke already knows the answer. But much more damning, the article goes on in these terms: And so do most of Canberra's political journalists. He went on to say: Howard was quite frank with me, for example, when the Opposition first used its numbers in the Senate in 1983 to delay the passage of Labor's original legislation. He didn't mind his Peacock-led party making a little political capital out of a difficult government decision. But care had to be taken, confided Howard, to make sure that the Opposition did not reach the point where the assets test was abandoned. The article goes on: As a former Treasurer, Howard well knew the figures. The article goes on: He privately congratulated both Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating on their courage for doing what had to be done-doing what he regretted not being able to do when Treasurer under Malcolm Fraser. Therefore, the time has come. It is quite clear that everyone around this House, not only those sitting in the House but the journalists in the gallery, knows that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he approves of the Government's assets test and that he has congratulated us on our courage in introducing it. Now that he is the Leader of the Opposition, will he have the courage and honesty publicly to declare what he has privately told so many people? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Treasurer. During 1983-84 and until recently, there has undoubtedly been a very rapid growth in the money supply, partly stemming from the Hawke Government `printing money' on a large scale, in the sort of Whitlam- Cairns 1975 style. Commenting on this, the respected journal Syntec states: The point to grasp is that money growth works on wages and prices only after a lag which can be as long as 18 months. How does the Treasurer view the warning that Syntec goes on to make of `destructive trouble' in 1986 and 1987 from this and related policies? Mr KEATING —Don't tell me, Mr Speaker, that a former professor of economics has just discovered that there is a lag in some inflationary influences from money supply growth! I find it amusing that the honourable member had to go to Syntec to quote it as an authority for such a proposition. If honourable members think that I am in the slightest way devastated by that remark, I assure them that I am not. The Government has, at all stages in the life of this Parliament and the one before, run a firm monetary policy. Indeed, in 1983-84 we hit our monetary target, and brought the money supply within the target range-for the first time in six years. We sold nearly $10 billion worth of bonds to do it, to finance the shocking fiscal inheritance left to us by our predecessors in their Budget. But despite that and despite the enormous capital inflow of that year preceding the float, we soaked it up with the required amount of bonds and brought the money supply within the target range. We started out doing that in precisely the same way in our second year, but because of the deregulation which the Government had introduced in the financial community and financial system, the relationship between the monetary aggregates and gross domestic product started to change. We saw the banks become very much more competitive, and we saw them sucking money back into M3, and that has been continuing. In fact, trading bank advances to the month of July were running at about 25 per cent higher than trading bank advances to the month of July in the previous year, and over the last year the balance sheets of trading banks have grown by about 25 per cent, which is spectacular growth by any measure, while non-bank financial institutions' balance sheets have grown by about only 7 per cent, reflecting the fairly dramatic change in the competitive position of banks versus non-banks and the movement back into the banking sector. Hence, monetary aggregates have been difficult to read in this country, as they have been in most countries. But the indicator of balance in the market is always interest rates. The Government has kept a firm monetary policy throughout. As well as that, the Government has an accord with the trade unions and we have had more wage restraints. In other words, we are not relying simply on monetary policy-which honourable members opposite demonstrated could not work and did not work, because what they sought to do was to restrain wages by killing growth and to lift unemployment to destroy the labour market and stop wage increases. Their solution was a radically tight money and low growth to kill wages. That was their proposition to kill inflation. That did not work, because in their `inflation first' strategy for years, we ended up with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, so it demonstrably failed. This Government has an approach of not simply relying on the accord but also on monetary policy; or, conversely, not simply relying on monetary policy but also on the accord. So the accord has an agreed basis of wage restraint in place. That agreed basis has been renewed now as a result of the historic agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that was formulated last week. That two years of continuing wage restraint will take Australia through from the boom and bust cycles of the 1970s into a period of sustained economic growth. That is why the normal indications of monetary growth and the lags that that might imply for wages in the kind of economy run by honourable members opposite is not the same kind of conclusion as would be made in the kind of economy that we run. I should have thought that even Syntec would have woken up to that after 2 1/2 years. Indeed, I should have thought that the honourable member for Berowra would have woken up to it, and that if he is a professor of economics and he can see that his Party's policy failed for seven years and that we have not got 5 per cent economic growth for the third year in a row, low inflation and diminishing unemployment, the penny might even drop for the honourable member and his Party that they were wrong. But the thing about the Liberals is that they learn nothing and forget nothing. They sit there determined to shut their minds to the success of the policy mix on this side of the House and they hanker for the thing which damned us to one of the lowest growth economies in the world. What always amuses me is that they are still at it. What the question suggests is that we should be trying to deal with wages through tight monetary growth. What I am saying is that we have a firm monetary policy, but the policy of trying to deal with wages through tight monetary growth failed. It failed for seven years. That is why I just wonder; all that I can say is thank God that the honourable member gave the profession up, because otherwise we would have a lot of crook economists wandering around. Mr LANGMORE —Has the Special Minister of State seen the media release issued today by the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Australian Federal Police Association, which claims that policing levels in the Australian Capital Territory are at a crisis point? The statement claims that the charter of objectives tabled by the Minister earlier this week downgrades the role of the Australian Federal Police in the Australian Capital Territory. What does the charter mean for the Australian Federal Police and for the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for Fraser for his question. I have seen the release, which was made available to me this morning, put out by the Canberra Branch of the Australian Federal Police Association. I should make a couple of points about it. Firstly, I think that everyone should realise that the charter tabled in this Parliament on Tuesday on the future of the Australian Federal Police was tabled in a climate that is very different from that in which a charter may have been issued under the Fraser Government six years ago. That was before Costigan and before the revelations of major criminal activity in this country, particularly drug trafficking and massive tax fraud. The new charter sets out to put priorities where this Government believes, and I think where every member of this Parliament believes, those priorities of the major law enforcement agency of this country should belong-that is, against major organised crime. There has been no downgrading of police activity in the Australian Capital Territory; and on a comparative basis, only South Australia and the Northern Territory have more police per head of population than does the Australian Capital Territory. The numbers in the Australian Capital Territory have been substantially increased in our term of office. The commitment made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech of last year has been carried through; the additional $10m will enable an increase of 300 people in the Australian Federal Police over the next couple of years. In spite of the May economic statement and the Budget which we have brought down, there has been no interference with the commitment made to the AFP to increase the manpower available to it. The important point to make about this new charter is that it was brought down only after consultations between my Department and me and the Commissioner of Police. So the Commissioner's inputs and views of those of his major officers are inherent in the new charter which has been brought down. As someone who has said for years that there is a lot of social input in much of the street crime that has evolved in our cities, particularly at a time of unemployment, I also say that we should recognise the great leap forward that has taken place in the Australian Capital Territory under this Government. Canberra luxuriates in full employment in many occupations. The unemployment rate in Canberra has dropped from over 8 per cent to below 4 per cent. That will perhaps be reflected in some of the tasks that have to be carried out in future by the police in the Australian Capital Territory. Another important point that the honourable member for Fraser would be well aware of is that as discussions for self-government for Canberra get under way, it may well be that under self-government the citizens of Canberra will debate whether they require more or fewer police in the Territory. They will then have to decide on the level of taxation they want to pay for the policing efforts they want in the territory. They may have to make that decision under self-government. In the meantime, while the police remain the responsibility of this Government, as under previous governments, the Department has to argue for funds in exactly the same way as do the other 26 departments. The final point I make to all members of the house who may come across the statement by the Canberra branch of the AFPA is that there happens to be an election campaign going on within the Association, We are likely to see some statements at this time which on other occasions would not come to the fore as people vie for the best positions to draw attention to the candidature for some of the exalted positions which may be becoming available. I say to the honourable member for Fraser and the honourable member for Canberra that I have very good relations with the Commissioner of the AFP. I have very good relations with the senior officers. We have done a great deal to recognise the new responsibilities that have been placed on the AFP with the establishment of the National Crime Authority and with the setting in place of various task forces. All honourable members would recognise the great work done by the AFP which led to the arrest of so many people with the breaking up of a major drug ring just a few weeks ago. That investigation was the major responsibility of the Australian Federal Police. So the new charter recognises only the new responsibilities for the Australian Federal Police in 1985 and not the responsibilities that may have been placed on its shoulders in 1979. Mr NEHL —My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Social Security, and I ask him not to give me any of that stale nonsense about the 12 millionaires. In view of the widespread failure and inequality of the recent changes to the assets test which supposedly made that test fairer for country pensioners, will the Minister inform the House of what steps he will take to remove the iniquitous curtilage restriction from the assets test? Will he ensure that pensioners living on rural land will not be disadvantaged just because they want to enjoy peacefully a well-earned retirement? When will he give country pensioners a fair go? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for asking a question on the assets test. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for him to address it to his Leader at a joint party meeting. I am surprised that he has not sought to resolve with the Leader of the Opposition the attitude of the coalition parties to the assets test. Over the last week or so the fact has been exposed that the new front bench has not yet resolved the conflict that exists within the Liberal and National parties. They cannot decide between a principled approach to policies or a sheer pragmatic concern to do something popular. No one in the Government Party believed that by imposing the assets test we were undertaking a step for which we would get the overwhelming plaudits of people, either in the city or in the country. Concerned as we are to ensure that what assistance we provide goes to the people in the greatest need, we took a step which rationalised payments to people on pensions and benefits to ensure that those benefits were paid to those in the greatest need. It is all very well for the honourable member for Cowper to say that we ought to forget about the millionaires, the people on very high incomes and the people with very substantial wealth and property. He says we ought to forget about them because it does not suit his case to remember that such people exist and that they were being supported by the social security budget of this country. I have received representations from the honourable member for Cowper and from a number of other members concerning problems associated with the implementation of the assets test. All of those problems and all of that correspondence were given the most careful consideration by the Government. We introduced as promptly as possible-certainly before the end of the last session of this Parliament-a number of changes in administrative arrangements. I took considerable interest in ensuring that the valuation process was speeded up and that the social security appeals process also was speeded up and that the additional resources were provided. We modified the principles relating to hardship. I believe that the assets test as it now exists is a very fair test, but I do not expect it to be popular. A decision that the honourable member for Cowper and the Leader of the Opposition have to take is whether popularity is more important than principle because, if that is what it boils down to, I assure honourable members opposite that they will be on the Opposition benches for a very long time. This Government may not be popular with respect to all of its decisions, but it is seen as being capable of taking tough and fair decisions. The assets test decision is fair. It certainly has its tough aspects, but I believe that the Australian people recognise it as being necessary as part of an overall approach which will ensure that the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition is met and that social security payments go to those who are most in need. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Government made clear to the Australian people its decision on two important issues-first, the privatisation of public enterprises, and second, expenditure restraint? Mr KEATING —The Prime Minister, other Ministers and I have made it abundantly clear that we see no case for the so-called privatisation of the great public enterprises of this country. We have also made it clear by example that we believe in restraint in government expenditure, and we have put that restraint into effect. We have done so within the context of the trilogy commitment, which is a commitment that guides our fiscal policy and which we have honoured in this budgetary year. In other words, we have been prepared to take and to wear the political flak to implement the right degree of expenditure control and to honour the obligations of the trilogy. However, this is in very marked contrast to the attitude proposed by the current Opposition. I refer to the article from the Australian Financial Review which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday and the interview with the shadow Treasurer on this important area of expenditure restraint. What members of the Opposition plan upon doing is not to indicate where they will make savings in outlays, not to indicate what they will do about monetary policy, not to detail what they will do about wages, but only to traffic in jargon and drivel. Specifically on the question of expenditure restraint, the honourable member for Mackellar was asked: `Where are your spending priorities?' He was also asked about the various areas. He answered: . . . if you allow yourself to be ticked off on one area such as on privatisation or on a hit list of expenditure cuts then you spend so much time on fighting brush fires in limited areas that you lose the overall strategy. In other words, at no time justify what one intends to do because that means justifying putting out brush fires. The next question was: So you don't foresee a detailed list of expenditure reductions being issued before the next election? His answer was: I don't think so. I think just a formula commitment-a trilogy plus sort of thing. On the important issue of expenditure restraint-bear in mind, Mr Speaker, that the whole issue of running Commonwealth economic policy is about Budgets, about outlays in expenditure, about monetary policy and about wages-there is fuzz, fuzz, fuzz and no detail. On the question of expenditure, to bring in a credible Budget this Government has to itemise expenditure restraint issue by issue and take the political heat for it, as with the assets test question we just received from the other side of the House, but the honourable member for Mackellar believes he will slide through by saying: `There will be no lists from us. We are not fighting brush fires. We will expect you to accept whatever expenditure savings numbers we choose to nominate when we put our next grab-bag of election commitments together. Don't ask us for details, just believe our rhetoric. Just listen to the jargon. Don't try to quantify anything, just listen to the jargon'. Honourable members opposite expect to be treated in the next election campaign as they were in the last when nobody believed they had any chance of winning and, therefore, they were not pressed on the question of expenditure control or about how they would finance full family taxation because they were regarded as fools. But now they have got the dry economic rationalists up here, the people who are going to tell us how it is done. If honourable members opposite want to rank themselves with us we will be demanding of them details about expenditure cuts. They cannot expect this side of the House to wear the heat on nominated expenditure restraint while they say: `No lists. No details. All we will do is say in an election campaign that we will have this, we will have that, and we will have something else. Do not press us on some analysis of fiscal policy in the ensuing year because there is a very dangerous view around Australian politics that at some time in election campaigns claim and counter-claim about costings is something that people should ignore'. I have never seen a more arrogant or contemptuous interview with the Press presented to the Australian public by an incoming shadow Treasurer than the interview on expenditure restraint. On monetary policy, the other great element of Commonwealth economic policy, he said: `Could I dodge that question? We have not thought about that'. But he has been up attacking us about interest rates while he says he does not know what sort of monetary policy he has. On the wages policy he said: Ordinary people who work in a factory or an office have to be paid regardless of how well they perform. He has not told us how one person will be paid X, one person will be paid Y, one person will be paid X-minus and one person will be paid Y-minus, or how in this sort of environment such a crazy policy could have any prospect of being implemented. We are hearing arrant nonsense from members of the new Opposition. This is what we have been hearing from the new Opposition, the so-called dries, the people who have been thinking about it. The claim to fame of the honourable member for Mackellar and the former Treasurer was that the honourable member for Kooyong had not thought his position through, but they had thought their position through. We can see how much they have thought their position through. They think they are going to get a free ride on this sort of humbug at the next election. They are quite wrong. I am afraid they are going to get pulled up very sharply. They are going to have to explain. If they want to tell us that they are going to cut tax, and that they are going to have some other expenditure outlay, they will have to say where the savings will come from. They will have to say, as we do, where the savings come from. We are just letting everybody know that it is nice to have it revealed. The humbug and cant which members of the present Opposition have as a substitute for economic policy is an indication to the public that they will be no better than they were in the last Parliament. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his Press statement of 29 April announcing the removal of interest rate ceilings for small business loans. Did he say in that Press statement that interest rate ceilings had the effect of discouraging bank lending to small businesses and that the removal of the ceilings will improve the availability of bank finance to small business? How does the Treasurer reconcile these eminently respectable and economically literate statements with the economically illiterate statements of the Prime Minister yesterday who alleged that the removal of interest rate ceilings on housing loans would damage thousands of home buyers? In answering it, I invite the honourable gentleman to face the issue and not to engage in the claptrap and jargon that he accused us of. Mr KEATING —Let me just get this right. What the honourable member is saying is that we should lift the housing rate ceiling- Mr Howard —Yes. Mr KEATING —The honourable member has had his go. What he is saying is that we should lift the housing rate ceiling on domestic interest rates and that we should lift the price of housing interest for existing mortgages because, he says, that is economically literate. He supports it because he has been urging me to do it. Mr Howard —I am saying that you are being inconsistent. Mr KEATING —The honourable member is also saying that housing interest rates should be put up. If anyone has been caught here, it is the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Will the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer observe that they are taking part in the proceedings of the House? If they want to hold a conversation they can leave the chamber. Mr KEATING —Members of the Opposition think that they can have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim for themselves some economic rationalist position about market determined rates and then they want to be sleazebags and talk about interest rates in respect of housing. That is what they are about. They cannot have it both ways. Let me indicate the consistency of the Government's position. When we came to office the financial markets of this country were still, in large measure, almost completely constipated as far as regulation and deregulation were concerned. We freed those markets up. We wiped out almost every control, bar housing. I have always said that we would never attempt to remove the housing ceiling until the whole process of deregulation had settled down and until the very dramatic swings and changes in the financial system had settled down. Then, in a better climate and in a situation of falling interest rates, we may consider it. That was our position and it remains our position. In other words, we were not attempting to throw housing interest rates into the cauldron of change to deregulation. The effect of the Government's changes has been a flow of money into savings banks and that has led to an unbelievable increase in housing financing. Savings banks were locked out of adequate deposits but this Government's policies have changed that and the benefit of the adequacy of deposits going to savings banks has been passed on to borrowers. It has put a roof over the heads of many thousands of Australian families. The fact of the matter is that housing interest rates are still not at their regulated ceilings. I also indicate, as I did earlier, that the trading banks have lifted the size of their balance sheets by about 25 per cent within a year. Their profits over the next 12 months will be extraordinarily high, and we will not give them a profit surge by lifting housing rates at the expense of housing borrowers. We will not say to the banks that, having given them something that the so-called men of business failed for 30 years to give them, after having taken them from a position of financial disadvantage to a position of financial primacy in the system, and after having seen their balance sheets improve by 25 per cent with a massive profit lift, we will add to those profits at the expense of the ordinary householder with an existing mortgage. That is our position. The dramatic change in the banking system is something into which we are not prepared to throw the whole household savings and housing loans question. I make that crystal clear. There is no inconsistency; there never has been. What emerges from the question is that the Liberal Party of Australia believes that the ceilings should be lifted now and that interest rates ought to be put up. Let us be quite clear about that. The Leader of the Opposition has been trying to fudge around this matter. He has been in here for a week talking about housing interest rates while at the same time giving us the background to his group of dries which supposedly has all the answers. The fact of the matter is that he has made it crystal clear today that he believes the ceilings should be lifted and that housing rates should rise beyond the present regulated ceiling. He does not care about the throwing of all the house borrowers into the chaotic situation of deregulation; he does not care about adding to the banks profits when they are having an absolute boom in business; he just wants to tip a bit more in at the expense of the householder. We will not do that. There is a very clear distinction-the Opposition would stick housing rates up and we will not. Mr MARTIN —I refer the Minister for Aviation to the recently completed community awareness program associated with the selection of Sydney's second airport site and ask: Firstly, what was the general community reaction to the draft environmental impact statement, particularly as it affected the areas adjacent to the Wilton and Badgery's Creek sites; and, secondly, what is the current position in respect of the site selection process? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question; it is an important one for the people of that region. Community reaction to the draft environmental impact statement has been excellent. The formal 10-week period for response to the draft EIS ended on 26 August. I am pleased also to say to the honourable member that there is now a strong element of competition between those regions for selection as the site for the second Sydney airport, particularly from the wider communities around Wilton and Badgery's Creek. The honourable member was quick to recognise that whichever region is selected as the site will gain a major economic boost, a major stimulation in economic activity, and over time thousands upon thousands of new jobs. He has been very strong in his support of Wilton as a desirable site. Other points of view have been expressed by those behind me in support of another location. Most opposition is now limited to those people who are directly affected by the land acquisition. In total some 461 submissions were received in response to the draft environmental impact statement. Of the 461, 204 were original submissions and 257 were pro formas that had been circulated by the various protest groups. That is one of the largest responses ever received to a Federal draft EIS. I have also received quite considerable favourable comment about the content, style and preparation of the EIS. During the visit to the Wilton area by the Department of Aviation's community access bus, a considerable improvement in community support in that area for selection was witnessed, and similarly there was an increase in support from the Badgery's Creek area for its selection as the site. As I said at the outset, there is now quite a degree of competition between both locations for selection as the site for the second Sydney airport. I should mention also that some of the respondents in the Wilton area preferred to make private rather than public indications of support for fear of some sort of public reaction if they were seen to be expressing support for the airport. The current position with respect to site selection is this: The Department is working to a schedule aimed at allowing the final decision to be made and announced before Christmas. Submissions from the public are currently being examined by the Department. Our immediate task is to complete the supplement to the draft EIS by 30 September. That has to be done to the satisfaction of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, which will then have to complete its independent assessment by the end of October. The time remaining between that and the end of the year will be taken up with the preparation of the submission to Cabinet and the final deliberation by the Government itself. I am quite confident and determined that the Government will have made its decision before the end of this year. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva, 4 February-15 March 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made the totally false allegation that the interest rate policies of the Opposition represented a commitment to higher interest rates. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, this is not a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —Do you want a proper debate? Mr Keating —If you ask a question- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the two honourable gentlemen do not observe the Chair, the Chair will be vacated and the House will be unable to proceed. I have had enough of this defiance of the Chair. The Leader of the Opposition is only one sentence into his personal explanation. I have previously enforced the rule that personal explanations must concern where an honourable member has been personally misrepresented. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition has so far transgressed, but of course he knows my rulings on these matters. Mr HOWARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the Treasurer's answer to my question he falsely alleged that the Opposition's policy regarding interest rate ceilings was a commitment to higher interest rates. The truth is that the removal of interest rate ceilings does not result in higher average interest rates, as the Treasurer well knows. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that personal explanations must go to the matter of personal misrepresentation, not to briefs. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, on the same point- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented? Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I raise by way of a point of order the procedure followed by the Leader of the Opposition in seeking to have a come-back on questions over which he has copped a hiding and trying to misuse a standing order, which he does now with regularity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer had listened to my statement to the Leader of the Opposition, it was to that effect. I remind honourable members that the process of personal explanation should go to where the honourable member has been personally misrepresented. That process will be strictly enforced. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SLIPPER —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SLIPPER —Last night in this House I was attacked most unfairly by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) who made allegations- Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would think that honourable members on my right would have enough sensitivity to realise that the question of personal explanations has to be clearly defined and would allow the Chair to be able to make a judgment. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last night in this House I was attacked most unfairly by the honourable member for Throsby who made allegations in his speech during the adjournment debate which were quite untrue. I did not criticise all members of the Australian Public Service, as was suggested by the honourable member. I recognise that most of them discharge their duties responsibly and to the best of their ability. It would indeed be a very sad day if an honourable member were not able to outline difficulties- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am sure that the honourable member has enough intelligence to have taken notice of the previous few minutes proceedings. He may correct where he has been personally misrepresented. In view of what has gone on previously, if he proceeds to debate the matter I will name him immediately. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was further misrepresented by the honourable member for Throsby. I did not in any way make any adverse comment relating to the Commonwealth Employment Service. That organisation was not even mentioned, directly or by inference, in my speech. The honourable member for Throsby also heavily implied that I may not have visited the CES offices in my electorate. I assure the House that I have visited both offices of Commonwealth Employment Service in my electorate of Fisher. I always believe in giving credit where it is due and criticism where it is warranted. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Throsby- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond his personal misrepresentation. He will resume his seat. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I hope that the honourable member will show more regard to the sense of a personal misrepresentation. Mr MILTON —Yesterday, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) answered a question by Senator Robert Ray relating to the Commonwealth funding of a child care centre in a high aircraft noise area near Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. In the Minister's reply he stated: I have received a letter from the Chairman of that Committee-- that is, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise- Mr Peter Milton, asking me not to fund this organisation because the Committee believes that the organisation does not know what it wants to do and should not spend its money the way it wants to spend it. This is a total misrepresentation of the Committee's views which I communicated to the Minister. In my telex to the Minister I stated: It would be much appreciated if you could ask your Department to arrange a meeting to enable the Department, Botany Council and the Community Co-operative to discuss the feasibility of relocating the child care centre at an alternative location. Nowhere in my telex did I suggest that the child care centre should not be funded, but rather that all parties concerned should meet and discuss whether or not that centre may not be relocated in a better area subject to less aircraft noise. The legal representatives of the community centre have contacted me. I explained that I did not want to stop this project, but rather to ensure that the well-being of the children was fully considered. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now going beyond correcting the Minister's statement. Mr MILTON —There is one other matter, Mr Speaker, on which I seek your indulgence. Mr SPEAKER —Is it a matter of misrepresentation? Mr MILTON —I believe that it is and I seek your ruling on it, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I will listen very carefully. Mr MILTON —The Minister stated that he did not intend to have funding of this type vetted by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise or-I emphasise this-any other committee of the House of Representatives. I believe that this House should take exception to the extreme arrogance of the Minister in making statements such as this. My Committee is required by this House to examine the effects of aircraft noise-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made that point. He now goes beyond personal misrepresentation. The matter goes to the functioning of committees. I will note it and will communicate with the honourable member in regard to it. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I suggest that you might consider the matter in relation to a breach of parliamentary privilege. It seems to me to have gone very close to an area-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party might have noted that I indicated to the honourable member that I would examine the last matter he raised. I do not want to put a particular terminology on it, but it would give me a chance to examine it in a quiet and reasonable manner. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Seanorth Pty Ltd dated 23 May 1985. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the agreement. Leave granted. Mr KERIN —I thank the House. This agreement is with Seanorth Pty Ltd, a joint venture company involving Australian and Thai interests. It authorises six Thai gillnetters and six stern trawlers to take up to 2,000 tonnes of pelagic fish, those species feeding in the water column such as shark, tuna and mackerel, and 6,000 tonnes of demersal fish, those feeding on the bottom in a designated area of northern waters in the Australian fishing zone in the first year of operation. Consideration will be given to increasing the number of stern trawlers to 10 and the quota on demersal fish to 10,000 tonnes in the second and third year of the agreement, provided the company performs satisfactorily and subject to availability of the resource. The three-year agreement in essence enables the Commonwealth to waive the payment of the levy access fee required of the foreign fishing vessels under the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981 in consideration of a number of economic benefits. These benefits, which are specified in the agreement, include: The replacement of one Thai gillnet vessel with an Australian vessel in each year of the agreement; The purchase of 600 tonnes of pelagic and demersal fish from Australian fishermen in the first year of operation, rising to 1,000 tonnes in the event of an increase in quota of demersal fish to 10,000 tonnes in the second and third years of the agreement; The maximum use of shore-based facilities where feasible; Expenditure in Australia on Australian goods and services of at least 10 per cent of the value of fish caught. The agreement thus gives effect to the Government's policy of maximising benefits to Australia in the development of the Australian fishing zone and to facilitate the participation by Australians in the development of resources in the zone. The boat replacement program will enable Australian vessels to operate in conjunction with the joint venture company, whilst the purchase requirements will open up markets to other Australian fishermen that otherwise would not have been available to them. The remaining requirements will generate economic benefits for industries servicing and supplying the joint venture and will be particularly beneficial to the Northern Territory. The agreement contains a number of safeguards to protect the welfare of the Australian fishing industry by: Setting quotas at levels which will not adversely affect the status of the stocks; Making the operations of the foreign vessels attached to the joint venture subject to strict operational and reporting procedures; Confining the operations to areas that will minimise conflict with existing operations by the Australian fishing industry, notably prawning operations; Making provision for variation in the quota allocated to the joint venture or area of operation in the event of an increase in capacity of the Australian industry to harvest the resource; Making provision for the payment of full licence fees if the foreign fishing vessels are not replaced on schedule and/or refusal to issue licences for one or more of the foreign vessels if the joint venture company's performance is unsatisfactory. It is the policy of the Government to give preference to Australians in the development of the Australian fishing zone, but where this is not feasible at the time the Government is prepared to approve joint fishing arrangements involving Australian and foreign fishing interests. There has been little or no exploitation of these northern demersal and pelagic resources until quite recently. It is hoped that this joint venture will provide further stimulus for the participation of Australians in the development of these northern resources. In the event of increased operational activity by Australian fishermen in these fisheries a commensurate reduction will be made to the quota allocated to, or area of operation of, the foreign fishing vessels. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —by leave-I am making this statement on behalf of the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is on his way north to better climates. This Thai-Australian joint venture will exploit waters between Darwin and Broome which are not presently fished to any significant degree by Australian vessels. A fleet of up to six Thai gillnetters and six trawlers will be set a quota of up to 2,000 tonnes of shark, tuna or mackerel and up to 10,000 tonnes of demersal fish by the second year of this three-year agreement. The Opposition supports the principle of joint ventures where it can be shown that net benefits accrue to Australia. It is reassuring that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has spelt out several areas through which Australia should benefit under this agreement. Access fees to the foreign boats may be waived if specified tonnages are purchased from Australian fishermen, and if one Thai gillnet vessel is replaced with an Australian vessel each year. There will be a requirement that the use of shore-based facilities is maximised and expenditure on Australian goods and services amounts to at least 10 per cent of the catch each year. These measures should go some way towards easing the concerns held over this agreement in some quarters of the Australian fishing industries. The venture had an unhappy start when allegations were raised that the preliminary advice to Australian fishermen had been inadequate, and that the agreement had been signed before the home industry was fully aware of the consequences. I know that there was concern that the impact of the venture on operators leaving the Northern Prawn Fishery under the voluntary adjustment scheme had not been adequately assessed. There are some fundamental differences between this venture and Australian operations. Costs of production for the Thai vessels can be expected to be significantly lower than those in Australia. I understand the Thai boats will not be subject to the usual, quite rigorous standards applying within the industry. Licensing requirements will be significantly less than those applying to other northern vessels. This House was told on Wednesday that typically an Australian boat may require 40 licences for the skipper and crew each year. I know of one Australian company which employs three officers full time just to process their licence applications. Further, it is apparent that wage costs under the joint venture will significantly undercut Australian rates. One condition of the job vacancies advertised in Australia was that applicants must speak fluent Thai. These factors have raised some questions over the likelihood of Australian companies being able to enter this joint operation. Sadly, many joint ventures in the past have not fulfilled their high expectations. It is to be hoped that this venture will be an exception. It would be helpful to Australian operators if the Minister could spell out in some detail, perhaps in a public statement, what differences exist in the conditions which apply to these foreign vessels compared with Australian vessels, and to explain how these differences will be overcome in order to attract a greater degree of Australian participation. The Opposition wishes the principals of this venture every success and trusts that the project will be of long term benefit to the Australian community. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: International Year for Repairing the Earth 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 disaramament, economic well-being, maximum employment, utilising natural resources for peaceful purposes, developing healthy soils and growing a plentiful food supply and tree cover. By so doing, 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. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education and environmental repair; 5. Develop national employment programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus for use in rehabilitating 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,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Dobie,Mr Hurford,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Webster. 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 to 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 for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. 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 giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other cops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. 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. 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 Chynoweth. 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 Ruddock. 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 support 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 Webster. 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 businesses finally sell the business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries- when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. 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,Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The 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, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent 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 Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. 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 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 Beazley and Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. 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 Allan Morris. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undermentioned 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 and Mr Rocher. 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 every pray. by Mr Steele Hall and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and honourable 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 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Rocher and Mr Tuckey. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr 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 a 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, 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. 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: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. 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 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels, motels, caravan parks, etc. will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism and business travel and will threaten the loss of jobs for employees in such establishments. Such a service tax will in fact be a bed tax and will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the Accommodation Industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the shire of Isis, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the canegrowing industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to canegrowers to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Federal Government is currently considering the elimination of the preschool block grant of $33 million in its 1985 budget whose effect will be to disadvantage the children of Australia in their most formative years of education. We therefore pray that your Honourable House will oppose the elimination of the grants to preschool education. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. 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 proposed cuts in funding for early childhood education and care services in the mini-budget disregards the developmental needs of young children in their formative years and adversely affect employment prospects for women. The cuts should be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. 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 Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We request the Right Honourable Robert Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia to convene a meeting with representatives of the major sugar exporting countries of the world (Australia, Brazil, Cuba and the E.E.C.) to initiate meaningful negotiations to reach agreement on world sugar on policy and price. Further that the Prime Minister commence urgent talks at international levels to formulate a new international sugar agreement to be based on the existing production levels of the exporting countries adjusted by whatever percentage necessary to reduce the difference in world sugar stocks between supply and demand to within 25 per cent. That the Prime Minister request the State and Commonwealth Governments to provide across the board assistance measures for Cane Growers by way of a guaranteed minimum average price as previously requested for raw sugar production within mill peak in the 1985-86 season. The amount of direct assistance to cane growers should be on a per ton of cane basis so as to bridge the difference between the price of cane actually paid and the price which cane growers would receive at the sugar price of $240 per ton 94nt. That unless financial assistance is provided in the short term the long term viability of many efficient producers will be sacrificed. If this happens the very fabric of communities along the north-eastern coast of Australia will be destroyed. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Northern Territory and Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The Transport links to the Northern Territory are totally inadequate in respect to passenger travel. 2. The residents of the Northern Territory are severely disadvantaged during peak travel times when disruptions occur due to industrial strikes and protests. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you: Prevail upon the Federal Government to urgently reconsider the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway and implement contingency plans specifically relevant to the Northern Territory's isolation during times of disruption of national passenger services. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister during the 1983 election compaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That the 12 1/2% consumption tax proposed by the Government will adversely and unfairly affect pensioners, those on fixed incomes and low income earners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no action be taken by the Government to implement this proposed tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. 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 showeth: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned 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 McGauran. 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 regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing 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 organizations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in county and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and member of the House of Representatives assembled: VICTORIAN PLANNING (BROTHELS) ACT 1984 The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel opertors to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. 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, Joondanna, 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 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. 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 provided 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Veterans' Entitlement Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair `earned service' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to Govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of War Veterans' and their dependants entitlements be restored. 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 doesn't 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 Duncan,Mr Hurford,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully request that your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to implement the provision of the Channel 0/28 multi-cultural television service to the Albury/Wodonga and surrounding districts. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher, in Queensland respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, property or wealth taxes, death or gift duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell their business are not ``windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. the people of Australia are already being subjected to the oppressive tax policies of the highest taxing government in Australia's history-the Hawke Socialist Government. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have 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 Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's promotion of fraud and overservicing through its policy of universal bulk billing. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.10) —Yesterday at Question Time I raised with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) Professsor Penington's concern regarding the unacceptable expansion of private diagnostic services as a result of universal bulk billing. The Minister's response was a credit to his totally unrealistic academic approach to such matters. He said that he did not yet have any evidence of the damaging effects of bulk billing. What an extraordinary statement! It is no wonder our university graduates have difficulty obtaining jobs if academics like Dr Blewett reflect the standard of university lecturers in this country. The Minister must be the only person in Australia who does not realise or know that his universal bulk billing policy is promoting fraud and overservicing; everybody else knows, including the Australian Medical Association. The AMA said yesterday: The bulk billing system encourages such styles of practice--- Of course, it was referring to fraud and overservicing in pathology. The diagnostic groups such as the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists know that. Both have made it clear that bulk billing encourages fraud and overservicing. Professor Penington knows it, as I explained yesterday. He said that there has been an unacceptable expansion of diagnostic services as a result of bulk billing and he says that universal bulk billing will have to go. The media knows it too. Today's editorial in the Australian states: The fraudulent abuse of Medicare by a number of pathology clinics and doctors highlights one of the great drawbacks to the whole health system-bulk billing. . . . . Medicare as it now exists is apparently an open invitation to dishonest doctors to manipulate it for excessive gain. The Minister's own front bench knows that also because it is only since the introduction of Medicare and bulk billing that entrepreneurial practices such as those of Dr Edelsten have blossomed and taken advantage of this Government's stupidity. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), acknowledged that fact when he called Dr Edelsten's Sydney Swans the Sydney Medicare football club. The Minister's back bench also knows it; 10 of them signed the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which states quite clearly: In many cases where pathology abuse has occurred it appears that the patient has not been aware of the general type or extent of pathology tests being ordered. Of course, that is the cornerstone of bulk billing. Under bulk billing the patient has no idea of the number of services ordered or the cost. As I have said, everyone around Australia bar the Minister knows that universal bulk billing is encouraging fraud and overservicing. It is important to understand just what can occur under bulk billing. Let us take the example of a person visiting his general practitioner and complaining of the effects of the common cold. Prior to the introduction of Medicare, if such a person felt the need to seek the advice of his general practitioner he would perhaps have had a consultation and received a prescription. If there were no complications, the doctor in all likelihood would have said: `If you are not better in a few days, let me know'. The total cost for the consultation and the prescription would have been around $25. Since the introduction of Medicare and universal bulk billing, new entrepreneurial medical practices have sprung up to take advantage of the Government's promoted bulk billing. If the same patient with the common cold were to go along to some of these new practices today, he would find a quite different approach could be adopted. I emphasise that this is likely to occur only in some practices, but the cost is significant. Firstly, the patient would be ushered into a very plush Medicare funded waiting room and then on to the doctor. In this instance, instead of the diagnosis of the common cold, in order to be sure that no other problems exist a number of diagnostic tests would be ordered, such as chest x-rays and blood tests. The patient is also likely to be asked to come back the next day to have his condition checked. Of course, the additional diagnostic tests are undertaken by individuals or groups financially linked to the ordering doctor's group. Therefore, there is a financial benefit to be gained by both those ordering such tests and those undertaking them. Under bulk billing the patient has no idea of the number of tests ordered and never sees an account. In these instances, instead of the total cost being around $25 it could well be around $250 or more. If universal bulk billing was scrapped, unless the patient visiting the entrepreneurial practice was a pensioner or card holder, he would receive an account. Under our policy that account would be fully reimbursable if the patient had taken out gap insurance. But the point is that alarm bells would start ringing when the patient received the bill because it would be double, treble or maybe even five or 10 times the amount he had previously paid for the treatment of a similar ailment. If a patient has no idea of the number of services ordered or the cost to fund those services, there is no chance that he will question the provision of those services. For the Minister to claim, as he did yesterday, that it is only when the patient has to pay 50 per cent of the bill that he takes an interest in the services rendered is nonsense. He must think that the Australian electorate are idiots if he believes that, once made aware of the cost of the services, patients would not take a greater interest in the services being provided. No doubt the Minister will claim that his fraud and overservicing section in the Health Insurance Commission will ensure that the practices that I have outlined are not allowed to continue. The facts are that these practices continue unrestrained despite the fraud and overservicing section. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts also makes it clear that the fraud and overservicing section of itself will not resolve the issue. On page 62 it states that the Health Insurance Act itself must be amended to combat medical fraud and overservicing. Concentration solely on the role of the fraud and overservicing section is to treat the symptoms and not the cause. As I have said, the medical profession is deeply concerned about the growth in this practice, especially by way of entrepreneurial medicine. It has raised the issue with the Department and the Minister. The colleges of pathology and radiology have separately raised the issue with the Minister and have expressed their concern. But still no action has been taken. The problem is in fact much greater than with just pathology services, which were the subject of the PAC report. The PAC has uncovered but the tip of an iceberg on overservicing, as evidenced by the approach already by the Royal Australian College of Radiologists to the Minister and to the Department asking for action to be taken. The real concern is that bulk billing, which divorces the patient from any interest in the services provided and the cost of such services, provides a financial inducement for some unscrupulous members of the medical profession to maximise their income by fraud and overservicing. The PAC acknowledges at page 107 that a fundamental issue is the lack of awareness by the patient of the general type or extent of the pathology tests ordered. Of course, that lack of knowledge is part and parcel of universal bulk billing. The PAC's role is to examine the efficiency of Government operations, not to question Government policy. Therefore, the PAC is not in a position to recommend the reversal of the Government's bulk billing policy. However, the point I make is that a number of the Committee's recommendations are consistent and indeed support the proposal for the Government to abandon universal bulk billing. On page 107 the Committee concludes: Better informed patients, interacting with their medical practitioners on the pros and cons of pathology investigations and having increased potential to audit the bills for services provided, could lead to more rational health care and use of pathology services. We agree. What does the Minister say? He says that he has no evidence that bulk billing is causing overservicing. Clearly, if bulk billing were scrapped patients would be in a better position to audit bills, as the PAC says, for services provided as recommended by the PAC. Further, the PAC also makes it clear on page 108 that it would be desirable if the patient, among others, were made more aware of the pathology tests and the costs of those tests being incurred. Of course, that is not the case under bulk billing, but it would be the position if bulk billing were scrapped. The Minister's continued refusal to acknowledge the problems generated by universal bulk billing is nothing short of a scandal. Mr N. A. Brown —Like Willis-do nothing. Mr PORTER —Do nothing indeed. The Minister has been told about the problem for over 15 months and he has done nothing. The Minister is responsible for setting up a Medicare bulk billing scheme which actually encourages the unscrupulous to legally rip off the system. Universal bulk billing removes one of the fundamental safeguards against overservicing, yet in the face of clear evidence of the result the Minister has failed to act. The medical profession wants the Minister to act, yet he continues to sit on his hands. Shuffling the fraud and overservicing section from the Department of Health to the Health Insurance Commission or making other such changes does not go to the heart of the problem. The Minister must go to the root causes. Bulk billing must go. The Minister has failed to act to date, and to continue to follow such a course in the light of the growing pressure from the Australian Medical Association and other professional medical groups, together with the evidence in the PAC report and the publicly stated views of other reputable health professionals-- Mr N. A. Brown —It is overwhelming. Mr PORTER —It is overwhelming and to fail to act is a total dereliction of the Minister's duty to the taxpayers of this country. I remind the Minister of what he said before he obtained his Health portfolio. In a media release by the then shadow Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, just a few weeks before the election, headed `A Health Policy for all Australians', he said: Labor will end medifraud. What has he done? He has implanted a system which encourages fraud and overservicing. He must act now. Mr Blunt —He has done a lot for sport. Mr PORTER —He has done a lot for sport, which is why the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is so upset. Mr Carlton —He will take over the No. 1 ticket for the Swans. Mr PORTER —Maybe he will. We heard this morning how the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has directed a lot of funds into his electorate. I think the Minister is upset that the Minister for Health can direct so much money into an alternative sporting body and he cannot get control of it. The Minister for Health must act now to get rid of universal bulk billing. If he fails to do so he will be aiding and abetting this rip-off of taxpayers' funds. If, because of his ideological commitment to socialised Medicare, he cannot bring himself to take this logical commonsense course of abandoning universal bulk billing in the interests of the taxpayer and the great majority of the hard working, honourable medical profession, he must resign. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —In answer to those honourable members who have been inquiring about Wednesday's Hansard, it should be ready today between 4 and 4.30 p.m. Debate resumed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.26) —The only welcome remark in the speech from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) is that at last he is now supporting the Australian Medical Association. I can remember that when there were difficulties in New South Wales the honourable member for Barker urged a repudiation of the agreements made between the AMA and the Government to resolve a very difficult situation. At least we are thankful for one comment. However, the rest of his remarks are simply a joke. He should ask any member of the medical profession whether he believes that Medicare encourages fraud and overservicing. If he were to read any medical journal he would find it full of complaints about the action this Government has taken in the area of fraud and overservicing. It has even been alleged by some members of the medical profession that this Government's concern with fraud and overservicing has caused unnecessary paranoia amongst the medical profession because this Government is the first government that has really tried to tackle what is a very difficult problem, the problem of fraud and overservicing. Nearly every measure taken in relation to fraud and overservicing has been taken by this Government, except for one draconian piece of legislation introduced by the previous Minister for Health, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), which imposed those automatic three-year bans on doctors found guilty of fraudulent offences. I must say that that Liberal measure has done more damage and more to discredit governmental activity in the fraud and overservicing field than any other action. I am glad to say that we have been able to work with the AMA and in this session of the Parliament we will be able to introduce legislation against fraud which will be effective but which will meet the justified concerns of the profession. When the honourable member for Barker gets up and postures about this Government promoting fraud and overservicing he should look at our record and at the reaction of the medical profession to the real efforts that we have made in this field. Indeed, we would welcome a bit of effective support from the Opposition. Let me turn to the particular issue taken up by the honourable member for Barker, the effort he has tried to produce, that somehow all of these problems are the result of the bulk billing policies of this Government. I think it would be fair to describe the honourable member's mind as a kind of intellectual desert in which the one oasis he can find is bulk billing and which he dives into every time he has a problem. There is no evidence at all that bulk billing has encouraged an increase in medical services in this country. Mr Porter —Have a look at the report. Dr BLEWETT —We will take the very report to which the honourable member refers, the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on Medical Fraud and Overservicing in Pathology. Honourable members will see that in the nine years prior to the introduction of Medicare there was a 39.7 per cent increase in pathology services per 100 consultations, an increase in that nine-year period of nearly 40 per cent. Mr Porter —You got 10 per cent in one year. It is in this very report-10 per cent in one year. Dr BLEWETT —It will be clear, when we come back to that point, that the honourable member cannot even do his arithmetic. It is pointed out in the report that under the previous Government there was quite a significant increase in pathology services per 100 consultations, yet nothing was done by these brave postures, these people who say that they will deal with this problem, in that period. The most interesting thing in the latest report is the suggestion that under four quarters of Medicare there has been no increase in the number of services. I quote from page 13 of the report, for the benefit of the honourable member, which states: . . . there has been very little growth in the number of pathology services rendered, either by the top 25 pathology groups as a whole or for the total of all APPs, during these four quarters . . . That is, in the four quarters of Medicare for which the statistics are provided, there is no evidence of any growth in the number of services. Unlike the honourable member for Barker-and perhaps it is unfair to call him dishonest-I am not prepared to say that just on that one year's figures we yet have any clear picture. I have always said that we need more time to be able to see the pattern. But, on the first year's figures, compared with the position that existed before Medicare, there has not been the kind of expansion that would have occurred if the honourable member's theory about bulk billing were correct. Let us consider the Public Accounts Committee and bulk billing. Contrary to what the honourable member says, the PAC is not forbidden to look at the issue of bulk billing. The most interesting thing in the whole of that bipartisan report is that there is not one comment on bulk billing as such. There were a few splendid efforts by the honourable member for Barker to twist things around, but there is not one single comment on bulk billing. That is not because the Public Accounts Committee was prevented from looling at that activity. If we go back to the first report of that same Committee on medical fraud and overservicing, we see that it looked specifically at the bulk billing issue. It said `that the only statistical analysis that had been carried out on bulk billing showed that there was no greater use or abuse of services where doctors bulk billed, as compared to patient billing'. That was in the first report of the Committee which looked at this issue and considered the evidence. All the material that we have since that date tends to confirm that particular diagnosis. Of course, that report made important suggestions about ensuring that bulk billing was checked more clearly by patients. It recommended strict enforcement of requirements that patients sign the assignment form in the presence of the doctor after the service has been provided; that patients be given a copy of the completed assignment form; that the legislation be amended to provide that failure to fulfil these requirements is an offence on the part of the doctor and or the patient, and that assignment forms carry the warning that this is an offence. It was not the Opposition, when in government, that carried through those proposals; it was this Government that put those verification procedures into the legislation to try to improve the control of the patient over the services that are delivered. We accepted from the very beginning that it was important that that information should be provided. The honourable member for Barker accused me of being academic and then he produced this extraordinary notion of patients going through their forms to check very carefully the pathology procedures given to them. We all accept that this is a major problem, but pathology services are not delivered directly to the patient. Usually samples of the patient's blood or other tissue are taken away to a laboratory and a whole series of tests performed on them. Most patients in the community accept the direction of their doctors about the necessity for these procedures. We have already taken steps to better inform the patient and I am all in favour of that. It was this Government, not our predecessors, that insisted that doctors should describe the activities that were being recommended on their forms so that patients would have a better chance of understanding than they would have if just a number were used. I fully agree with the honourable member for Barker that we can go even farther along this route to better inform the patients but, as the PAC reports have pointed out, the information approach will advance us only a certain way along the road. It will not provide major solutions to the problem. But certainly, we could go farther in that direction quite effectively. We have already gone part of the way, but we would look at ways of going farther. The honourable member for Barker then said that because there would be accounts involved, much more attention would be paid to this matter. That is a pretty academic claim. If an Australian citizen goes to his GP and that GP says `You need a number of pathology tests, I will send some blood samples off to the pathologist', the services will then be performed and the bill will come back. The great bulk of patients in the community accept their doctor's advice on the recommendation of such tests. This is what the report points out-it is very much the responsibility of the doctor, not the patient, even if there is a charge attached to it. As the honourable member for Barker pointed out in his honesty, the Liberals do not intend to make people pay for these procedures. Instead they intend to introduce a 100 per cent gap insurance so that the whole bill can be paid and the patient will not have those problems. Of course, as I pointed out yesterday, that procedure is extremely inequitable. Under the present bulk billing arrangements, the tendency is for the less well off in the community to be bulk billed by their doctors and for the better off to pay the 15 per cent gap. Under the Opposition's proposals of a 100 per cent gap insurance, it will be the wealthier sections who tend to take out full gap insurance. The result would be that the better off would have the gap insurance and would have nothing to pay. There would be no restraint on them. The less well off would have the 15 per cent to pay. So, much the same thing would work under the Opposition's scheme but, of course, it would be the opposite way round and it would be more inequitable. Finally, we are told that the medical profession-the Australian Medical Association, the pathologists and others-are all attacking bulk billing. I think that they are attacking bulk billing, but not primarily because of the fraud issue. They know, as anybody who has examined this issue knows, that the source of the problem is private fee-for-service medicine. As innumerable reports have pointed out, if one has a private fee-for-service system, doctors' incomes are increased by delivering more services. If one has a private fee-for-service pathology system, then the more individual tests one can perform on a bit of blood the more fees one will receive. In fact, this morning the Sydney Morning Herald put an end to all the nonsense that has been talked by the honourable member for Barker today. It said that dealing with any of these things, such as bulk billing: . . . will not solve the basic problem that while diagnostic services are provided on a fee-for-service basis, the incentive is to maximise the provision of those services. That is the key to the problem. To pretend that we will solve it by removing bulk billing or introducing gap insurance or any of those proposals will, in fact, lead to further problems in the system. This will occur unless the Opposition, as well as the Government, is prepared to recognise that to come to grips with this difficulty we must face up to the problem posed at the very heart of our health system-that is, a system of payments which very much encourages the doctors to add to the number of services because that produces higher earnings. The obvious solution to that is to have different ways of paying doctors. Countries which have most effectively contained their medical services have had different ways of paying doctors. However, in this country, as I have always recognised, the fee-for-service system is very strongly entrenched. Therefore, we must effectively encourage the control of these services on the supplier side. The only other way one could do it would be to make the population-the individual-pay a very high proportion of the health costs. The American research shows that until one gets to something like a part payment of 50 per cent of the total fee, a gap payment of 50 per cent, then there is very little effect at all on the demand for services. I do not believe that that is a policy that this Government will undertake and, in fairness to the other side of the House, I do not believe it is a policy that those opposite would undertake, if they are ever in government. The only policy we have left is primarily to ensure that the service provider be responsible in the use of his services. Of course Medicare contributes enormously to that because for the first time in this country we have effective and immediate statistics to inform both government and the profession about the problems developing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The debate is concluded. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.41) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of terminal area, Townsville Airport. The proposal reported on by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works is for the construction of a new domestic passenger terminal integrated with the existing international terminal building together with associated works, including demolition of the existing domestic terminal, upgrading of aircraft movement area pavements and taxiways and support facilities and services. Honourable members will recall that the proposal was first referred to the former Committee in October 1984. That Committee was not able to report because of the dissolution of the House on 26 October. The new Committee completed its enquiries in time to table a report at the end of the last sittings but action on it was held over to allow full consideration of the Committee's recommendations by the Government and the House. The Committee reported that there is a need for a new domestic terminal and associated services and facilities and expressed its concurrence with the general scope of work proposed. It did however recommend construction of a different terminal building design, at some additional cost. The design recommended by the Committee does not involve a departure from the common user terminal concept proposed by the Government. The terminal design recommended provides some short-term advantages, particularly that of development of an efficient road system and public access. It is seen by the Committee as enabling a lessening of hazards to passengers under certain situations. The Committee's proposals have been carefully considered but cannot be supported by the Government. The design presented to the Committee by departments at the public hearing of evidence last April is still considered to be the most economical and efficient alternative. It will be least disruptive to existing services and has flexibility for future expansion. The potential hazards to passengers, seen by the Committee to be inherent in the design, are not considered to be significant when examined in the light of safety regulations applying. Similar conditions already operate at many airports around Australia without difficulty. My colleague, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), will be speaking to this motion and can expand on the functional and safety aspects. The Government has also considered possible cost savings and has decided that construction of a new aircraft toilet waste disposal facility can be deferred and some aircraft pavements reduced in scope without detriment in the short-term. These savings are estimated at $445,000 at September 1984 prices. The effect of these savings is to reduce the cost from $14.6m, as originally referred to the Committee, to $14.1m compared with the Committee's preferred option at $15.7m. For ease of comparison, these figures are at the original September 1984 prices. The updated cost of the option now proposed is $15.1m at June 1985 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed with the aim of commencing construction in the early months of 1986. Completion is expected early in 1988. I commend the motion to the House. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Holding-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.46) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making his comments available to me. The Opposition supports the motion in general. We do, however, regret that the Government has not seen fit to accept the advice of the Public Works Committee. It is, of course, up to the Government to make that decision. If that decision is finally shown to have been a bad one in the light of events that transpire the matter is then on his head. It is interesting that he has seen fit to call in his colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), presumably to help him explain why the Government is not accepting this well regarded Committee's advice, but I do not see the Minister in the chamber at present. The Public Works Committee has recommended what appear to be better roads, a series of constructions that would lessen hazards to passengers, some staff relocation facilities for better planning and the provision of an appropriate observation deck. As I said, it is really up to the Minister to decide whether he is prepared to disregard that excellent advice. We also trust that the Government, in bringing this motion before the House, has taken into account a number of other aspects, particularly what the future needs may be for this airport, given the inevitable deregulation of the airline industry. As we all know, and particularly from a number of submissions made to various parliamentary committees and made publicly by the Budget Rent a Car System Pty Ltd and its Chief Executive, Mr Bob Ansett, there will be an enormous increase in tourism once the airline business is deregulated. I trust that these facilities that are now being proposed will be adequate to deal with that. One of the observations that is continually made to us by the Government is that because of the sparse population and the large area that Australia covers, deregulation of the airline industry will not work. The example of Kendell Airlines is illustrative. The large airlines used to run services between Melbourne and King Island but decided they did not want to do that any more so a small airline, called Kendell Airlines, took over the service. Before it took it over there were six flights a week. Now there are 14 and fares are 12 per cent lower than before. The observation that tourism services will not increase as a result of airline deregulation in Australia is clear nonsense and, of course, as a recent business magazine pointed out, that experience is also occurring in South Australia. Needless to say, everybody acknowledges, for whatever reason, that deregulation of the airline industry in the United States of America has been an overwhelming success. The Minister, in his motion today, has not mentioned any defence implications, and we also trust that this matter has been taken into account. Finally, there appears to be no mention of the much vaunted airports authority and how it will fit into the construction and operation of this new airline terminal in Townsville. All in all, although the Opposition does not oppose this motion, a very superficial job seems to have been done with inadequate consultation and insufficient consideration of all matters that should be taken into account. This matter therefore is on the Minister's head. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(3.50) —The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has fought the great fight with respect to this facility for the constituents of Herbert. He will be speaking a little later, but I shall delay the House for a few minutes. I say to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) that I do not think that this is the appropriate occasion on which to enter into a debate about regulation versus deregulation, but, since he has raised the matter, I have to say that the existing airline arrangements of this country are those that his predecessor and his colleagues who now sit on the Opposition benches created, and this Government is bound to uphold the provisions of the existing legislation. Far be it for me to criticise, but it is not a proposition to come into the chamber and attribute to us the implementation and operation of the legislation for which he and his colleagues were responsible. It is their child; it is their baby. They must live with its imperfections. Do not attribute them to us. However, as a government, we are bound to uphold the provisions of the legislation. A review is under way and will be carried through. There was a very successful seminar to discuss the two-airline policy here in Canberra last week. It is not comparable to speak of the American experience and the Australian environment. They are just totally different. It is comparing apples with oranges. If the honourable member had attended the seminar last week and listened to the speakers from the United States, he would not have made the statements that he made a few moments ago. But there will be opportunity for that kind of discussion as time passes. The honourable member said that there was no mention of defence. He will be aware that Townsville is a defence airport. All that we are dealing with is the construction of a civil aviation terminal. He also said that there should have been mention of the new Federal Airports Corporation. It is not mentioned in the statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) because the airport is not within the area of responsibility of the Corporation; but about three years after the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation we shall be looking at the position of the defence controlled airports and then seeing what the Corporation's experience has been and seeing how successfully we can have that operate, relating that to the provisions of the defence controlled airports. I express my support for the comments made by the Minister for Housing and Construction. The proposed redevelopment has the wide support of the people of the Townsville region and the aviation industry. The report of the Public Works Committee fully endorses the need for redevelopment works of the scope proposed. However, the Committee did not recommend the option preferred by government but a design which does have certain short term advantages. The Committee's recommended option enables an efficient vehicular road system to be developed and provides a ready access to the terminal building from the land side. However, the extra cost involved in building this alternative and the consequential problems, both in the construction phase and in any future expansion phase, make this choice unacceptable. The terminal building design presented to the Public Works Committee hearing on 24 April 1985 is the most economical and efficient alternative. It will be integrated with the existing international terminal building, thus maximising the utilisation of building space in both existing and new areas. Its construction will not displace other airport assets. For example, there will be no need to provide additional apron parking space for commuter aircraft as the existing area will be untouched. We do not see that the problems of passengers boarding aircraft on the commuter apron are as significant as the Committee has noted. The arrangements existing at Townsville are common to those in similar parking areas at other Australian airports and passenger safety has always been maintained by strict adherance to safety regulations. In addition, achitecturally, the completed terminal will have greater flexibility for future expansion. Certain cost-saving modifications have been made to the proposed works. These are, firstly, to provide an apron edge taxiway to Airbus and Boeing 767 standard in lieu of Boeing 747 standard, and, secondly, to defer the replacement of an aircraft toilet waste disposal building. These measures will save approximately $500,000 in construction costs without affecting the efficiency of the complex in the short term. The total project will include the new terminal building, an enlarged and strengthened aircraft parking apron, widened taxiways, road system and car parks, an emergency electrical generating system and associated engineering works. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning, design and construction can proceed in accordance with the building design presented to the Public Works Committee hearing in April 1985 as the preferred Government option. This Government decision represents a sound use of public moneys and will provide a very much improved and long overdue facility for Townsville. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —by leave-It was on 3 October 1984 that this House referred to the Public Works Committee the proposal for the redevelopment of the terminal area of Townsville Airport. That Committee was unable to report because of the dissolution of the House on 26 October 1984. The report of the new Committee was tabled in this House at the end of the last sittings. This project has now been further considered by the Government. Changes to the design of the proposed works have been recommended. The Government is now ready to proceed with the redevelopment. It is expected that construction will start during the early months of 1986. I congratulate the Hawke Government on this historic motion to approve work on this redevelopment. I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), the former Minister for Aviation and now Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the former Minister for Housing and Construction and now Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) for their splendid efforts at bringing this project to reality. I also record my thanks to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee, Senator Foreman, and to other members of his Committee. The existing building was constructed as a Royal Australian Air Force building during the Second World War. It is built on a concrete pier; it is a timber-framed structure, with a corrugated iron roof and asbestos cement cladding. The building has clearly outlived its use. The development of tourism in north Queensland over the last 10 years has been tremendous. There has been a dramatic expansion of air traffic during that time. I am very grateful to the Parliament for this motion and for the Government's decision to proceed with this urgently needed facility for Townsville. The people of my electorate have recognised with gratitude that the Hawke Government has done more for the prosperity and development of north Queensland than any Federal or State Government. On behalf of the people of the electorate of Herbert, I say to the Hawke Government: We thank you; we are obliged to you; we are not insensible of your kindness. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.58) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia, Kent Street, Sydney. The proposed work reported on by the Public Works Committee is for a major multi-level telephone exchange building near the Central Business District of Sydney on the approaches to Sydney Harbour Bridge. The Committee tabled its report at the end of the last sittings but the very heavy workload of the House precluded presentation of a motion to proceed at that time. The Committee reported that there is a need for a new exchange and that the proposed design of the building appears to be satisfactory. However, in recommending construction of the work in the reference the Committee expressed this concern: That the Australian Heritage Commission was not given the opportunity of performing its statutory responsibility in a spirit of consultation . . . Following discussions with and advice from the Heritage Commission, the design of the building was modified to improve its relationship with the adjoining buildings which are on the register of the National Estate. These actions were completed before the Public Works Committee hearing in spite of the belated advice on the proposal to the Heritage Commission. The internal procedures adopted by my Department have now been revised to ensure that for future projects the Heritage Commission is fully advised at the earliest practicable time. The revised procedures worked well for the Telecom Plaza project in Sydney which was considered by the Committee some time after this proposal. I am confident that the Committee accepts that there was no intention by either Telecom or my Department to avoid their responsibilities under the heritage legislation. Indeed, my Department regards its co-operation with the Heritage Commission as most important and has developed particular skills and procedures in each major office to ensure that the best liaison occurs across all levels of departmental operations. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $27.6m at January 1985 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.01) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making details of the motion available to me. The Opposition does not object to the motion; however, the work proposed is sizable in dollar terms, being in excess of $27m. We really wonder whether in siting this new telephone exchange building at a location where costs are so high the Government has adequately considered, firstly, the impact on the heritage of the area, secondly, the very high costs associated with building the exchange in that area and, thirdly, whether there might have been another place where this building could have been located. After all, we hear so often these days that communications are instant. It does not seem to us that there is any reason why this building should be located so close to the city of Sydney. We also question whether the Government has taken into account the impact of the inevitable deregulation of the telecommunications business. Mr Hollis —You must be joking. Mr BEALE —I wonder in what honourable member's electorate the exchange is to be built. We heard from the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) in regard to the proposed extensions at Townsville Airport. I wonder whether we will hear from the honourable gentleman in whose electorate the exchange is to be built. No doubt it is a safe seat where this piece of pork-barrelling is to be located. Has the Government taken account of the effect of the inevitable deregulation of the communications business? Frankly, I doubt it. Recently, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has been very busy citing a whole series of wild figures relating to the impact of deregulation on the communications business. I suggest that had this building been located somewhere different the Australian consumer and user of its services would be much better off when the inevitable deregulation comes about, but time will tell. The Opposition does not object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.04) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and La Trobe Streets, Melbourne. For some years the Australian Postal Commission has been adopting its policy of the decentralisation of its mail processing facilities in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. This has involved the construction of a number of suburban and country mail centres at strategic locations in these States. In Victoria the strategy is now in place except for the provision of suitable facilities for the Victorian State and the Melbourne mail centres. The functions of these two proposed centres are at present being carried out in the former central mail exchange building at the corner of Spencer and Bourke streets. The Commission regards this building as unsuitable for future mail processing operations. This proposal for a new Melbourne mail centre is to replace similar functions in the obsolete central mail exchange building as part of the network of mail centres throughout Australia. The proposed mail centre will be a three-level building with the operations area and truck loading bays at street level. Staff amenities and office space will form a small first floor section along the Spencer Street frontage, and a basement car park will cover the whole site below street level. The total estimated cost of the proposal is $16.3m at April 1985 prices. This is a further example of the Hawke Labour Government's commitment to the revival in the construction industry and the provision of services for the people. The Hawke Labor Government has no intention whatsoever of ever selling off Telecom Australia or Australia Post. I say to members of the National Party of Australia that while we are in power they will not have to worry. I have pleasure in tabling the plans of this proposal and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.07) —The Opposition has no objection to this motion, but I note that the Government seems to be trying to whip a dead horse with the issue of privatisation of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. The reality is that the Government has no hope of ever convincing anybody in Australia that Telecom or Australia Post is efficient. They are not efficient. The proposal that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has put to the House is for the construction of a new Melbourne mail centre including an underground car park. Who is that for? Is it for the people of Australia? No; it is for the employees of Australia Post. What sort of feather-bedding is that? The cost of providing services by Australia Post is a problem because of its rigidity and the feather-bedding for its employees. As I have said, the Opposition has no objection to the motion. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(4.08) —Again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making information on this proposal available to me. We wish the Joint Committee on Public Works well in its deliberations. It is to be hoped that the Committee and the Government do not allow some of these difficulties that we have experienced before with these sorts of buildings to occur. I refer, firstly, to the Redfern mail exchange-that dynamic, industrial enterprise where the layout, the design and extraordinary bad practices led to horrendous union problems that, for years, held up the distribution of mail in that city and around the country. Similarly, I also hope that the Government and the Committee will not allow the situation that occurred at Rushcutters Bay to develop in the new facility. I draw the attention of the House to a practice known as `all on'. Referring to a statement of a commissioner of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, I asked the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) whether the Australian Postal Commission informed the Minister that this practice had defrauded Australian citizens of millions of dollars. What did the Minister for Communications say in response to that question on fraud? After the Arbitration Commission had said there was a fraud, the Minister said that the matter was currently under consideration. Subsequently the Minister said that he did understand, after all, what `all on' meant. It was a practice relating to a long-standing-- Mr Hollis —Do you? Mr BEALE —I am telling the honourable member that it is a practice relating to a long-standing industrial constraint whereby staff refuse to work overtime unless all staff are working. As my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has just pointed out, it is no wonder that the Australian public are sick to death of Telecom and Australia Post when that sort of inefficient operation is allowed to continue. What do we now hear about all on? We hear that despite what the judge said no additional costs were incurred but service performance was affected. How can service performance be affected unless additional costs are incurred? We trust that the Committee and the Government will not allow the incredible situation to arise again at the Redfern mail exchange and with the all on practice at Rushcutters Bay. The Opposition has no objection to this motion and wishes the Public Works Committee well in its deliberations on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —I apologise to the honourable member for Deakin for not giving him the courtesy of the first call. He will learn that rapid footwork in Parliament is just as important as in politics outside. On this occasion the honourable member for Richmond showed dazzling footwork. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —I ask leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain Customs Tariff Proposals which were moved earlier in the session and which constitute part of the order of the day No. 84. These proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 which has now been assented to. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —I move: That Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1 to 4 (1985), constituting part of order of the day No. 84, government business, be discharged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.14) —I rise in this adjournment debate today because there was inadequate time to speak on a very important subject during the debate on the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill. This Bill dealt with today to amend the export market development grants scheme effectively eliminated the tourism industry from benefit under that scheme. We hear a great deal of rhetoric from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) about the Government's commitment to tourism. But when it comes to the crunch, when it comes to actually examining the amount of assistance that this Government gives to tourism, there is something found to be wanting between the Minister's public rhetoric and the actual practice of the Government. In the mini-Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 16 May it was announced that tourism would be deleted from the export market development grants scheme with effect from 20 May. Almost as an afterthought in that statement there was a comment to the effect that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism would be bringing forward a package of assistance to compensate the tourism industry. The tourism industry did not take too kindly to that and considerable pressure was brought to bear on the Government and the Minister in particular to clarify exactly what would be happening. Unfortunately when the Minister took his proposals to his Cabinet colleagues, despite the Government's overwhelming commitment to tourism, he was not terribly successful. It was not until 19 June, in the absence of the Minister overseas, that the Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), was able to make a Press statement announcing that there would be a new scheme to assist the tourism industry. As I said, this statement was made on 19 June, about a month after tourism was officially excluded from the export market development grants scheme. The amazing thing is that it is now 13 September. I remind honourable members that tourism was excluded on 20 May, the tourism overseas promotion scheme was announced on 19 June and it is now 13 September and the TOP scheme is still not operational. I personally think that that calls into question the Government's true commitment to tourism. When we look closely at the sort of assistance that is available to tourism I think there is further evidence that the Government really does not have its cheque book where its mouth is. Under export market development grants in the last financial year tourism received assistance to the extent of $9.3m. This is no longer available to it. But the TOP scheme has an appropriation of $5m. That is virtually a halving of the nominal assistance available. But of course it does not take into account the impact of the devaluation of the Australian dollar which today I think is worth about US 68c. This scheme, which is designed to assist Australian tourist operators to promote overseas, is limited in its ability because it just does not provide as much purchasing power for people who want to promote overseas as it would have previously done when our dollar was at a respectable level. The tourism industry is renowned for having innovators, wanting to get on with the job and to go out and promote and sell Australia. Unlike the Minister, who seems to be preoccupied with the froth and bubble approach of what Paul Hogan can do on television, many tourism operators in this country believe that the real job is getting over there and selling, getting people on the planes, putting them on seats to come to Australia and spend money. Unfortunately, they are making applications to the Department or the Australian Tourist Commission-there is some confusion as to who will actually be responsible for administering this TOP scheme-and getting acknowledgments that these applications are not being processed. The great problem is that the Minister does not seem to realise that we in this country are not the determinant of commercial activity in the major markets where we seek to attract people and there is a real risk that because of the inability of the Minister-- Mr Price —And his Department. Mr BLUNT —And his Department, to get this scheme up and running we will lose the promotional opportunity for the coming holiday season in the northern hemisphere. Americans, unlike Australians, do not get long holidays. They usually decide a year in advance where they are going to take their holidays. If we are to promote effectively, the advertisements have to be placed in the northern hemisphere Press right now. Because the Minister and his Department are not capable of defining exactly how the scheme will work and are not capable of processing applications-of course applications have to be approved before any funding is available under the Press statement issued on this scheme-there is absolutely no assistance available to tourism operators right now and their capacity to continue to promote Australia is severely limited. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace. The Minister is inept, his Department is slack and the whole situation should be reversed without any further delay. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.18) —Over the last week many harsh words have been spoken in relation to the Mudginberri dispute, words such as gangsterism, Stalinism, blackmail, et cetera. I am very disturbed that there appears to be a case of an employer organisation treating its members in this way. Its members are threatened that unless they contribute to a political campaign against the Federal Government their membership of this organisation will be placed in jeopardy. I am referring to the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. A letter dated 27 August 1985 written by the Executive Director, Mr Robinson, states: Following much consideration it has therefore been decided to impose an additional `one off' levy on all Ordinary and Associate members. The amount of the levy has been determined at $20, and the subscription account is enclosed. Your early payment of this amount would be appreciated. All receipts will be credited to a separate political campaign fund and will be retained for that purpose. An appropriate amount will be immediately rebated to the REIA to cover this Institute's proportion of the costs incurred to date for the capital gains tax campaign, and the balance will be retained to be used for other- note the word `other'- political campaigns as decided upon by the REIV Executive Council from time to time. The invoice is headed: `Levy for Political Campaign Fund'. It is dated 22 August 1985. It also states: Special levy: $20 Please note: Failure to pay this account by the due date may place the membership of yourself and your agency in jeopardy. This is a threat to the livelihood of many people. Why should this organisation be allowed to threaten its members? The Federal Government has created boom times for estate agents. We have, through our housing schemes, created a great deal of work for the industry that the Institute supposedly represents. It is a disgrace that the workers and employers who belong to this organisation can be threatened in this way, Their livelihoods are threatened. Unless they pay this levy for a political campaign they may place themselves and their agencies in jeopardy. I urge all members of the Institute to speak up against this motion and not pay the levy and to replace the people who imposed this levy on them with someone who will not use the money for blatant political purposes. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria should keep out of politics and concentrate on selling houses; it should do something that it knows best, instead of imposing on its members and demanding, threatening and blackmailing them to take part in a political campaign. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.21) —As a former serving member of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, I speak today to express my grave concern at the Hawke socialist Government's decision that our RAN Oberon class submarines, which have given such excellent service and which are to be phased out early in the 1990s, will be replaced by German or Swedish submarines. Through the Oberon connection, Australia has been a privileged member of the first grade, enjoying unique access to state of the art submarine weapons and combat technology, stealth and silencing methodology and applications, and participation in top secret intelligence gathering and dissemination. Let there be no doubt about it, the three top submarine nations in the world today are the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. With no disrespect to the other nations concerned, the proposed replacements would effectively drop Australia from the first grade into the third or fourth grade, both in terms of the product itself but more importantly in terms of our access to technology and weapons systems. I wish to make the following points, and invite the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), hopefully soon, to respond: First, the Minister for Defence's claim that the United States Pentagon had sought the advice of IKL/HDW on the developments of conventional boats is not-I repeat not-correct. IKL/HDW in fact offered their paper design for the type 2000 on approval or return basis. Secondly, the Minister has failed to inform the Parliament that the United States Navy virtually condemned the type 2000 design, and that the United States Secretary of the Navy, Mr John Lehman, Junior, has stated that the type 2000 IKL/HDW does not meet American standards re-submarine silencing, safety, and maintainability. Thirdly, the Minister has said that IKL/HDW was a substantial builder for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers and therefore had an association with the United States in that regard. In fact, IKL/HDW has built submarines for only three NATO countries-Greece, Turkey and West Germany. Fourthly, the Minister for Defence has failed to point out that the largest boat IKL/HDW has built for the West German Navy is only 450 tonnes-about one-sixth the size of the paper design that the Minister has accepted for Australia's future defence needs. Fifthly, there is no United States element in the IKL/HDW submarines built for Turkey and Greece; neither do any of these submarines contain United States combat or weapons systems. Sixthly, the Minister failed to acknowledge that Sweden refused to supply Australia with weapons during the time of the Vietnam War. Seventhly, the Minister for Defence has not informed the Parliament that the United States Navy has warned that it would be most reluctant to allow any advanced United States weapon or combat technology on a Swedish-designed boat. Finally, the Minister for Defence has failed to make public the fact that neither IKL/HDW or Kockums has ever put a boat in the water over about 1,200 tonnes. We need double that. Neither IKL/HDW nor Kockums has a boat in the water with a positive weapons discharge system-yet the Royal Australian Navy specified that-and neither IKL/HDW nor Kockums has any experience in multideck curved bulkhead design or build, the most elementary of safety design features. I therefore call on the Minister-and the Hawke socialist Government-to urgently review the situation before it goes any further. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.26) —Yesterday marked the eighth anniversary of the death in detention of Steve Biko at the hands of the South African Security Police. His death in detention is, of course, but one of many. At this moment it is estimated that at least 1,000 residents of South Africa-mainly blacks-are being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial. Almost all these people-some 83 per cent according to a recent survey conducted by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cape Town-are subjected to all manner of beatings and torture. Is it any wonder, then, that there is among the black majority of South Africa a rising mood of frustration, impatience and anger? This week, there came from South Africa alarming reports of hundreds of blacks being beaten and shot by the police during recent disturbances. As in the case of Sharpeville, most of the victims were shot in the back-innocent bystanders desperately fleeing from the police. A 15-year-old boy on his way home from school was shot repeatedly by police using shotguns and an 8-year-old boy standing at the door of his home had his face peppered with birdshot. If we are to speak of violence in South Africa, we must admit the fact that, for the past 40 years, and beyond that, the blacks of South Africa have been the victims of increasingly vicious acts of institutionalised violence inflicted on them by the South African authorities. We must also recognise the fact that whenever the black majority have sought to negotiate peacefully with the authorities they have had their leaders taken from them to be detained as troublemakers, and to be tortured, beaten and, in many cases, murdered. Likewise, when blacks have sought to protest peacefully against the gaoling of their leaders or have come together to mourn their dead, they have been set upon by the police, and beaten and shot. Then, and only then, have the blacks themselves retaliated with violence-and in most cases this violence has been directed against property rather than against people. But with every innocent person teargassed, beaten or shot, black anger mounts and the prospects for a peaceful settlement diminish. For more than a quarter of a century black leaders in South Africa have been calling for economic sanctions against their country. On 26 June 1959, Chief Albert Lutuli, then President of the African National Congress-and subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize-called upon the international community to impose economic sanctions. He said: The economic boycott of South Africa will entail undoubted hardship for the Africans. We do not doubt that. But if it is a method which shortens the day of bloodshed, the suffering to us will be a price we are willing to pay. If only we had listened to those prophetic words, if only we had heeded his call. Then, in all probability, there would have been no Sharpevilles, no Sowetos and no Cape Towns-and so much bloodshed and loss of innocent life would have been averted. Today, the situation in South Africa is so much worse than it was in 1959. A number of things now seem obvious: First, in one way or another, the black majority will one day win full and equal rights, and that day gets steadily closer, for they are determined to win. Secondly, the South African Government shows no serious intentions of seeking a peaceful settlement based on principles of justice and equality. Thirdly, given the present intransigence of the South African Government, it seems inevitable that there will be increasing bloodshed and loss of life. Fourthly, the limited economic sanctions imposed in recent times by the international community have already had a significant effect. Fifthly, further and more extensive sanctions offer the best hope of bringing about a speedy resolution to this dreadful conflict with a minimum of bloodshed. I believe that our Government, working in close co-operation with the international community, has no alternative but to extend these sanctions. I believe that we have a serious moral responsibility to listen to the cries of the suffering black people of South Africa who for so long have called out to us in vain. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 September 1985: Companies Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 228. Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 57-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 227. Public Service Act-Determinations-1985-Nos. 69, 72, 73. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86E, dated 31 August 1985. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 225. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1985- No. 42-Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment). No. 43-Bookmakers. No. 44-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 45-Litter (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 226.