Wednesday, 19 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.01) —The Criminology Research Amendment Bill amends an Act of Parliament that was introduced in 1971 under the coalition Government. It is worth while recalling the words of the then Attorney- General, Mr Hughes, when he introduced that Bill because they are as relevant now as they were then. He stated: The purpose of this Bill is to establish facilities on a national level for the conduct of research into crime and for the training of persons engaged in the prevention and control of criminal behaviour. In dealing with the problem of crime in our community, he said: There can be no gainsaying that the incidence of crime is rising in Australia. This is no unique experience. Many overseas countries, particularly those that are highly urbanised and industralised, have even greater problems than we do here. It has become generally recognised that there is a causal connection between rising crime rates and a number of aspects of development, such as urbanisation, industrialisation, population increase and technological change. He continued: Many related factors are involved-the greater complexity of life presented by modern society, the decline in social controls of behaviour, the absence in many highly urbanised societies of the supports and sanctions of a well understood traditional culture, the opportunities provided by urbanised societies for anonymity and freedom of action and for an increase in criminal activity with a lower risk of detection. In short, an element in the price of rising material standards in an industrial or post-industrial society is that the society becomes less firm-footed. Mr Hughes pointed to the statistics on crime: Some estimates suggest that there has been an increase in Australia in the order of 100 per cent during the last 20 years in the number of crimes reported per 1,000 of population. Moreover, reported crime is only the tip of the iceberg. There remains what is called the dark figure of crime that is unreported. Some estimates suggest that it would be almost four times the reported rate for some offences. None of us would deny that what the then Attorney-General said in 1971 was right. None of us would deny that the problem is a far greater one now than it was in 1971. Few people who have paid any attention to the activities of this Government would think that the response to the problems over the last three years of this Government's tenure has been adequate or appropriate or timely. It is worth while, when looking to what the Government has done, to look at some of the specific things it could have done-to look, for example, at the response of the Government to the Costigan recommendations. We all recall that the final report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was handed in a very long time ago. After quite some time the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) responded on 21 May 1985. This was meant to be a detailed response to what Mr Costigan proposed. It will be recalled that Mr Costigan's report was presented to the then Leader of the Opposition and was tabled by the President of the Senate on 22 February 1985. There were many recommendations made by Mr Costigan. Not all, of course, are to be accepted; some most certainly should be accepted. All needed consideration; all needed a view expressed by the Government as to what it was going to do and what it was not going to do. For example, there was a recommendation that the Royal Commissions Act should be amended to delete the requirement that a false answer be shown to be material to the inquiry. The Government response was that it was under consideration. Is it still under consideration? For example, a further amendment was proposed to amend the Royal Commissions Act to allow the application of State laws relating to perjury. Is that still under consideration? Why do we not have a definite answer? There was, of course, an example of something that was rejected by the Government-namely, that the requirement of a reference being granted by the Intergovernmental Committee for the National Crime Authority to use its coercive powers should be taken out. That was rejected by this Government. The Opposition's view is, very plainly, that we would accept it and we would legislate for it. The problem, of course, remains that the National Crime Authority lacks a self-starting mechanism, and as long as it lacks that, it is bound by the terms of the Act and cannot use its coercive powers until it gets a reference from the Intergovernmental Committee, and that Committee may take the wrong view. It may, for whatever reason, not wish that some matters be investigated. There may be a State view that some matters that the Crime Authority believes should be investigated should be left to the States. So, in the absence of these coercive powers and in the absence of the Authority being able to make its own decision, we see an authority which is hobbled in the way in which it can use its powers for the purposes of the investigation of organised crime. Organised crime here, whether it be in drug trafficking, organised prostitution, gambling or any other field-for example, the area of videos-is a major problem to our society. None would gainsay that and, as I said earlier, none would gainsay that it is a growing problem. Yet the response we get is inadequate, inappropriate and untimely, and the kind of response evinced by the Government to the Costigan recommendations is slow, tardy, inappropriate and, one would think, almost the response of a government that finds it too burdensome and too difficult to deal with the problems, or even to consider them. One thing in particular comes to mind. I suppose that all of us here would take the view that assets which have been accumulated by criminals as a result of organised crime should be confiscated. That seems simple justice. For example, assets accumulated by those involved in the drug trade and which can be shown to have been derived from that trade should, we would all think, be confiscated. They could be put to such uses as a drug rehabilitation program to assist those who have been damaged by this so-called victimless crime. Let us remember that people who trade in hard drugs are trading in lives at random. A murderer at least selects the target. Those who trade in hard drugs do not care. They know that the targets are out on the streets, that people who become addicts are likely to be forced to become criminals to meet their habits, that their life expectancies are diminished, that many will die as a consequence of drug overdoses and the side effects of drug dependence-and these pushers do not care. They regard the lives of Australians, particularly young Australians, as being quite expendable in the pursuit of gain. These are the people who should be treated in the harshest possible way. Yet we are still talking about, at least I suppose we are still talking about, the confiscation of assets of these criminals. The Special Minister of State back in May 1985 in response to the Costigan report-a response which was some three months after the report was available-dealt with the subject of asset forfeiture. He said: For some time there have been Commonwealth provisions for asset forfeiture with respect to drug trafficking offences. A number of States have, or have proposed, similar legislation. Then later, he said: Repeating recommendations made in the other reports I mentioned earlier, the Costigan Commission also supported the extension of forfeiture legislation from drug trafficking to other areas of crime- Not just simply drug trafficking, I interpolate. He went on: In this regard, the Final Report cited the American Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations legislation, noting the constitutional differences between the United States and Australian systems. He has under consideration this extremely crucial problem, but what has happened to it? Why do we not have a Government response? We understand that a joint working party has been established to finalise the matter as soon as possible. What has happened to that working party? Where is the report? Where is the Government legislation? Why, for example, do we not have legislation of the kind which has been enacted in New South Wales? It would be simple enough, would it not, to have legislation pressing our own constitutional powers to the limits, as they should be pressed in this kind of area? Again, to quote the Special Minister of State-I agree entirely with him-he said: One of the most effective ways of striking at top line criminals is to take away their profits. The Government firmly endorses a multi-pronged approach to wrest illegal gains from criminals and make organised crime unprofitable. Central to this approach is the continuing enforcement of the tax laws in relation to profits from illegal activities, and the introduction of legislation providing for the forfeiture of assets which can be shown to be derived from criminal activities. We agree that assets which can be shown to be derived from criminal activities should be forfeited, just as we believe that those who engage in organised crime and in particular those who engage in drug trafficking, should be subject to the harshest possible penalties. We do not believe, of course, that penalties are a simple answer. We understand the great difficulties of proof. We understand all of the problems that the police face when dealing with organised crime. But certainly to make the price higher is one road and it is an essential road - an essential element - in the war against organised crime because it is a war and nothing less. It is a war which our society is losing. If anybody has a different view upon the subject I would be very glad to see on an analysis of crime statistics how one can justify optimism. Those who think that crime does not pay, and it has been an axiom of our society for many years that crime does not pay, have only to look at the figures - be they State or Federal - on a wide variety of criminal activity. One comes to the conclusion that crime pays and it pays handsomely. Let me give an example that some would think is a little far away from organised crime. When one speaks of video piracy most people would think of backyard operators making one, two or maybe 20 or 30 reproductions of a video, selling them and making a small profit. But it is estimated by industry sources that about 20 per cent of the video industry in this country has been captured by the criminals. We are not dealing with unsophisticated criminals but with those whose capital investment for the purposes of making the most sophisticated of copies is very great - running, I have been told, into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) may have been show - as I have been shown - copies of videos and the original at the same time. I have been asked to say which was the copy and which was the original. Under an examination by eye it is perfectly impossible to tell which is which. I have been told that the techniques which are being employed these days involve the use of laser technology costing, as I have said, a great deal of money. Does anybody really think that this is not organised crime? Of course not. I am sure that the Attorney-General would not suggest that it was not organised crime. In that area we are looking at amendments to the Copyright Act so that prosecutions can be facilitated and to make the punishment fit the crime because the punishments under the Copyright Act for the sale and possession of pirated videos - that is, videos that have been produced in the way I have described by organised criminals - that have been handed out by the courts are derisory and the punishments presently provided by the Copyright Act are equally derisory. I understand that a committee has been considering this matter for four years. This Government has been in power for three years. The Attorney-General has foreshadowed legislation. Three years by this Government to examine such a problem is adequate, is it not? There is a sort of Rip van Winkle feeling about the whole exercise. Can anyone really imagine anything more than a few days being necessary to acquaint oneself with the problem and to draw up amendments to deal with that facet of the review of the Copyright Act? No, we have had four years - three years under this Government. The Attorney-General has foreshadowed that legislation will be introduced in the autumn session. We shall wait and see what happens but, as I understand it, the nature of the proposal is that what is planned is still far too inadequate. An area of organised crime is operating happily and really without any concern about the sanctions of the law because the sanctions are pretty well non-existent. For example, if one were fined-as one person was-$150 for the offence of having in one's possession infringing copies, and there were many such copies of a video in one's possession, would one not think that that was a very good investment? Would one not think that $150 plus lawyers' fees is neither here nor there but just one of those marginal costs that one has to pay to enjoy the fruits of one's criminal activities? People go around this country engaging in these sorts of activities. There is a criminal industry estimated to cost the legitimate industry, the small businessman or business woman, big business and those who are in any way dependent for their livelihood on that industry, about $30m a year. What has happened? We have from this Government no adequate, timely or appropriate response. We have a delay which can be characterised only as disgraceful when one considers that the Government has had three years and that this problem is known, is growing and is one facet of the whole problem presented to our society by the assault made by organised crime-and it is truly an assault. One does not have to be expert or particularly interested in the subject to be deeply disturbed at episodes that surface day after day after day in the national media. I do not for a moment suggest that there are easy solutions. There are no easy solutions to the problem. Harsher penalities, penalities that make the punishment fit the crime-in particular the economic punishment-are part of it. Part of it lies in guaranteeing, so far as is within the Government's power, that the National Crime Authority operates to maximum purpose and that it is freed of the unnecessary fetter of having to go to the ministerial council for the purpose of getting authority to use its coercive powers. If we believe that the Authority is made up of the right people, as undoubtedly the Government does or it would not have appointed them, and if we have confidence in those people as we should have, we should have confidence that they will exercise their powers properly. Of course, there is also oversight, as there should be, by a parliamentary committee. Part of the answer lies in the traditional areas of law enforcement. Whilst the Government has done something in that area, what it has done is manifestly inadequate. If we look at the increases in funding in such areas as sport and recreation, and contrast those increases with increases in funding which have been given to the Australian Federal Police and think of the immense damage which has been done to this country by the assault of organised crime, must one not come to the conclusion, that, regardless of the sincerity of intentions of those on the Government side engaged in combating organised crime, their work has been manifestly inadequate and that the response of the Government lacks any sense of urgency, any sense of clear direction, any understanding of the dimensions of the problem and any realisation that new means are necessary and new methodology necessary? For example, it should act in the most urgent way to get the best qualified people as quickly as possible into the Australian Federal Police. I know that measures are under consideration. I know that steps have been taken. But it has all been too slow and all infected by a view which seems to permeate the Government's approach to organised crime, that is, to deal with it bit by bit but without any overall appreciation of the problem and without any sense of urgency. To return to what the Special Minister of State had to say, one of the most effective ways of striking at top line criminals is to take away their profits. Let us have legislation taking away their profits. Let us have legislation of a kind that has been introduced by the Labour Government in New South Wales-the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Bill 1985, which is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the Government. Why are we still waiting to have introduced into this Parliament a Bill of the same character? Why after a year has no action been taken? Must we wait for another year or two years or three years or four years? Must we await a report of an interdepartmental committee that seems to have become buried somewhere in the recesses of one of the buildings that litter this city? Why does not the Government simply say yes, of course this legislation is necessary; yes, of course what the Special Minister of State said back in May 1985 was right; and, yes, we should have the legislation now? The legislation should have been introduced last year, yet at this stage there is not even on the horizon any sign that we will see the legislation. I state plainly that I do not give a damn about problems that might conceivably, under the worst case situation, arise in relation to the interpretation of the Constitution. Of course a government has to look to its constitutional powers; of course it has to act within those powers, but let us take a robust view of those powers and use them to the greatest possible benefit of the Australian community by seeking to take away the profits from the atrocious activities carried out by these people who are parasites on our society and who are responsible every day for the destruction of the lives of young Australians. That having been said, let me say that we in the Opposition welcome the amendments proposed by the Government and set out by the Attorney-General. They are mainly machinery amendments to the Criminology Research Act but they are very sensible. There is a great need for work to be done by organisations such as the two set up under the Criminology Research Act. I remind the House that that Act was introduced into this Parliament by the coalition Government. In particular, the amendments provide for certain increases in representation upon the Criminology Research Council, established under the Act, and for certain additional research to be available. Honourable members will understand that both a council and an institute were established under the Act and both do work of a valuable nature. However, if one looks at the 1985 report of the Criminology Research Council one may be pardoned for thinking that some of the work which has been done is on the peripheries of relevance. For example, crime and the Hobart Bridge disaster does not immediately strike one as being of particular relevance. Crime and architectural design in Brisbane strikes one as a curiosity-perhaps an amusing curiosity, but an unnecessary curiosity. One can, of course, be struck by some of the other titles: For example, the forensic implications of the development of maggots in cadavers is no doubt a very worthy line of research, but the evaluation of the living unit concept in use does not immediately strike one as being particularly useful. I did notice one particularly piquant title: `Evaluation of the Sydney drink-driver rehabilitation program', which was originally funded to Mr M. Farquhar, former Chairman of the Bench of Stipendiary Magistrates, who has fallen upon evil days. No doubt that program has been taken over by others. The increase in funding involved in the Bill is trifling. The research is necessary. It is an essential adjunct to the law enforcement processes and to the overall administration of the criminal justice system, and we in the Opposition do not find it necessary-I have not found it necessary-to examine the details of the Bill which have been examined by the Attorney-General. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(10.33) —I was rather surprised that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) barely mentioned the Institute of Criminology or the good work it has undertaken. In my comments this morning I shall certainly attempt to redress that situation. In my view, criminology research is an area of great importance in any civilised society. I know that the aim of the Criminology Research Amendment Bill is to amend the Criminology Research Act to allow the participation of the Northern Territory in the workings of the Institute of Criminology through membership of the Criminology Research Council and to give legislative backing to referrals by the Attorney- General to the Institute of areas of research and investigation. These are important amendments which I am sure that all honourable members will support. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments about the Institute of Criminology, about criminology research and about its value to the community in the development and maintenance of a humane and just society. The Australian Institute of Criminology was established as a result of the reforming zeal of the then Attorney-General and now Mr Justice Lionel Murphy in 1973. The confidence he had that the Institute would provide a much needed focus for law reform in the criminal justice sphere was not entirely misplaced, although it has not been entirely realised either. This is by no means the fault of the Institute, particularly now that it is under the guidance of its new Director, Professor Richard Harding. It has produced some excellent research in a wide range of fields in the area of criminal law. Even the most cursory glance at the annual report of the Institute, or its quarterly journal, will serve to illustrate the scope of the Institute's work. If any fault is to be slated home it is to Police and Justice Ministers, Attorneys-General and Commissioners of Police who have ignored or chosen not to respond to many of the worthwhile reforms that have been recommended in the reports of the Institute. If we turn to the 1985 annual report of the Institute we can see quite clearly the ground-breaking nature of the research which has been undertaken. Quite critical and important research has been reported in the areas of crime statistics, public security, sentencing, correctional services policy, Aboriginal people and criminal justice, violence against women and children, corporate and white collar crime, juvenile offenders, victims of crime, terrorism, and drug enforcement policies. Honourable members will have to agree that these are some of the most important and controversial areas of criminal justice. They are areas which are of particular concern to many people in the community. They are areas which have often been improperly and indecently exploited for cynical political gain by so-called guardians of public morals with little regard for the well-being of those people who are directly involved. The Institute of Criminology is an independent research body with, as I have said, an excellent record of high quality, objective research. It has no axe to grind. Its concern is to promote discussion and reform within the criminal justice area consistent with its charter as determined by the Criminology Research Council, which is representative of the States and the Commonwealth. It is concerned to promote a criminal justice system which is fair and equitable, in which notions of fair play and decency are paramount and which uses its resources in the most cost efficient manner consistent with these objectives. Let me briefly describe some of the research findings of the Institute which have destroyed some of the more pernicious myths and confronted some of the more indecent prejudices about the criminal law in our society. Dr Mukherjee has shown that accounts of youth crime have been seriously flawed. His study has found that most youth crime is petty and often transitory and that young offenders do not commit the most serious crimes or commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Instead, he has shown that exaggerated accounts of youth violence are a deliberate ploy to mask serious misbehaviour by the powerful, whom he describes in terms of corporate crime, crimes by drug companies which result in death and birth defects, crimes by medical practitioners who perform unnecessary surgery and who prescribe unnecessary or incorrect drugs. There is evidence to show that the more serious the crime, the less likely the criminal is a young offender. Then again Dr Peter Grabosky has produced a series of reports on industrial and white collar crime. His report on occupational health and safety enforcement, a landmark in this country, describes Australian enforcement strategies as weak and unsophisticated. He has reported that offences which might be prosecuted as industrial homicide are routinely subject to fines of a few hundred dollars. Dr Grabosky has also produced some pertinent work on victimology-that is, the effects that crime has on its victims. This is an area of particular importance in law reform, open to abuse from those more concerned with shoring up the status quo than with pursuing real and lasting reforms or those who would rather treat symptoms than get to the root causes of crime. Mrs Kayleen Hazelhurst has produced a significant series of reports on Aboriginal people and the criminal law, which examines Aboriginal attitudes and perspectives, problems confronting the police, the functions of the courts and the interaction between Aboriginal communities and the criminal law system. This research is particularly important if the criminal law is to come to grips with the cultural perspectives of the Aboriginal people. Dr Suzanne Hatty has prepared a series of papers about domestic violence and the attitudes of the police responding to it, an area which is in urgent need of clarification and reform. Dr Grant Wardlaw is a recognised expert in the field of political terrorism and has published extensively in that area. Dr David Byles has undertaken research in the area of recidivism. I could go on for some time outlining the achievements of the Institute of Criminology. Apart from the work I have mentioned, the Institute has commissioned further important research in these and other areas of the criminal law which are in urgent need of reform. Again, I refer honourable members to the various annual reports of the Institute and its quarterly journal. I admit to the House that I have a special interest in many of these areas. As Attorney-General in the Dunstan Labor Government in South Australia, I introduced a number of successful reforms in the criminal law which have improved the criminal justice system in that State. South Australia had the first rape in marriage legislation; major reforms originating from the Mitchell report brought the criminal law in that State up to date. The first homosexual law reform in the country was introduced in South Australia, and capital punishment and corporal punishment were abolished. Capital punishment reform has proved its worth, given the recent results in a number of murder convictions, particularly like that of Lindy Chamberlain. I have an interest and a record in the reform of the criminal law because I believe in the need for compassionate laws which are fair and decent and which recognise the inequities and inequalities in our society, which acknowledge the existence of fundamental cultural differences, which give all members of our community a fair go before the law. In my view, the old adage should be turned around, justice must be done, not only be seen to be done. The only way in which reforms of the criminal justice system will be successfully implemented is through the educative role of bodies like the Institute of Criminology. I firmly believe that without that education, based on high quality research, we would be living in a much more brutal society. The advances made over the last 10 years or so have more than convinced me of this, but they have also convinced me that only the tip of the iceberg has so far been touched. The history of these agencies has contributed to my conviction that a national educational approach to law reform is an urgent and necessary priority. As I have said, this is the only way that our society can maintain a humane and civilised approach to the law and can ensure that it does not slide into brutality. It is not the role of our police forces to undertake this function, although I strongly believe that they must be made to take more notice of research in criminology. My experience with our police forces has been that the educative role which I believe is so necessary cannot be performed by them and must be the role of specialised agencies. Our police forces have been entirely unable to co-operate in the past in any effective manner in criminology matters. In my view it is a disgrace that conferences of police Ministers, Attorneys-General and police commissioners have been discussing for over 15 years the introduction of standardised crime categories to allow proper statistical comparisons between the States. This effort is still no nearer to resolution because of the internecine jealousies which exist between State police forces. It appears that they are more concerned about covering up the unpalatable information that in some area or other their particular State will be shown to be worse than one of the other States than about getting the data required to be able to plan fundamental law reforms or to undertake effective policing. The cost of policing and enforcement, of the courts and correctional services for the criminal justice system, is approximately $2,000m each year in Australia. The amount spent on the Australian Institute of Criminology is just 0.1 per cent of this amount. In 1984-85 the Institute's budget was only $2m, roughly equivalent to the cost of putting one extra police car onto the streets of each of Australia's capital cities. This is yet another example of the misplaced priorities we so often witness in this country and of successive authorities ignoring or choosing not to acknowledge the benefits of prevention, a course of action which would force them to confront the real reasons for the injustices in our society and the real perpetrators of the crimes which cost us such a huge amount each year. The refinements to the Australian Institute of Criminology which this Bill introduces give the House the chance to reflect on the value of the Institute and of education in the prevention of crime. As I have made clear, this is a factor which I believe has been undervalued-a situation that I will continue to work towards being redressed. I support the Bill. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.43) —The Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1985 is designed to change in some small ways the purpose of the Criminology Research Act 1971. That Act established facilities on a national level for the conduct of research into crime and the training of persons engaged in the prevention and control of criminal behaviour. As we know, criminal activity has greatly diversified its forms and characteristics over many years. I guess it is true to say that in a sophisticated modern society has the effect of producing sophisticated methods able to be used by those within our community who would steal the property of others and seek a free ride through life at the expense of others. As my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has said, we must bend all our efforts to apprehending, charging and convicting those members of society who batten on the hard work and property of others and who seek a free ride through life at the expense of their fellow humans. The Bill reflects to a certain extent the changes in and the spread of criminal activity encountered by the modern law enforcement agency and the system of justice which inhibits wrong-doing and protects law abiding citizens. It is strange that the increase in permissiveness in society has had the effect of creating a social reaction which does away to a very real extent with the social stigma which criminals previously encountered. We see this very clearly in the social behaviour of criminals who have made their fortunes by perpetrating large crimes. They hobnob at the races with politically and socially reputable people. They penetrate socially the highest levels of moneyed society. Social inhibitions do not seem to exist for them. It is quite strange how throughout society at present there is almost an acceptance, an admiration, for some of those people who have beaten the system, who have taken advantage of others and have benefited from it. The purpose of the Bill as outlined by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech is to enable the Northern Territory to become a participant in the joint Commonwealth-State scheme established by the Act. The Bill introduces amendments that will increase the size of the Criminology Research Council from seven members to eight, consequent upon the addition of the NT. As the hon member for North Sydney has said, the Opposition welcomes those amendments. I see a great deal of merit in including the NT in the total situation. The Bill also introduces amendments to clarify the functions of the Australian Institute of Criminology by giving it specific authority to collect information and statistics without detracting from, and in the context of, the overall collecting and co-ordinating role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In addition, specific authority is given to the Institute to provide information and advice to Commonwealth, State and NT criminal justice departments and agencies and to collaborate with bodies in Australia and overseas. That is a most significant amendment because it should enable the Institute to assist police organisations throughout Australia, particularly the Australian Federal Police, in collecting proper work load data and in assisting them to determine proper statistical bases for assessing staffing levels. I mention this matter particularly because last July the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) called for a review of Australian Federal Police resources. That review was done to the best of the Australian Federal Police's ability. It took four months and it came up with some very specific areas of concern. In fact, it called for 1,400 additional police to be added to the work force of the Australian Federal Police. What happened to that report? The Special Minister of State said that he could not accept it because he was not certain that the data and methods used were statistically reliable. This amendment allows the Institute to assist other organisations in collecting and processing data. I hope that one of its first acts will be to assist the Australian Federal Police in determining, to the acceptability of the Special Minister of State, the data and statistical bases which will enable him to respond more closely and positively to the propositions put forward by the Australian Federal Police. That report is a most important one and it is a great pity that the Government has, in a very real sense, shoved it to one side. Honourable members will recall that it showed that 23,000 social security frauds were not investigated in Victoria and New South Wales in July last year. What has happened since July of last year? There are now 31,000 social security frauds in Victoria and New South Wales still uninvestigated and the number is increasing at the rate of 1,000 a month. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has lambasted the Opposition for suggesting that it wants to pursue poor people who through no fault of their own owe the Department of Social Security some money. It is not the Department of Social Security they owe the money to: they owe the money to the taxpayers of Australia. In fact, we are not talking about those people who have made an honest mistake or who through some combination of circumstances have continued to receive benefits when they should not have. What we are talking about in the vast majority of cases is deliberate and systematic fraud of the system. We are talking about people who are working and yet continuing to collect dole payments. That is a deliberate fraud. There are many other cases of people entering into de facto relationships and being supported by another person but continuing to receive benefits from the Social Security Department. That is a deliberate fraud. Those are the sorts of statistics that are increasing at the rate of 1,000 a month. If the Government is sincere about assisting in combating crime, if the Government is sincere about preventing fraud against the taxpaying citizens of Australia, it should look very carefully at this sort of situation and not shove it under the carpet. Let me refer to another result of that investigation in terms of the resources available to the Australian Federal Police. The drug unit in Victoria and New South Wales was said to be at breaking point. The report said that northern Australia was wide open. Very few issues concern the average Australian more, particularly the average Australian with a young family, than the drug trade and the increase in drug taking, particularly by young people throughout this country. We have a report from the Australian Federal Police which says that the drug unit is at breaking point and that northern Australia is wide open in terms of drug trafficking. What has been the Government's response? We have had a great deal of rhetoric but no hard cash to fight the drug trade. Hopefully, with the assistance of the Institute of Criminology, we will have some more investigation which may help the police, and through them their Minister, to take a more hard-nosed and responsive look at some of the areas which are causing people a very great deal of concern indeed. We have had examples of huge tax frauds being investigated but those investigations are being delayed because of a lack of properly trained police staff. The Special Minister of State has made very great mileage out of saying: `We have supplied the police with a lot of computers- to the tune of millions of dollars worth of computers, not immediately but over three years'. What he has not said, of course, is that no additional computer operators have been supplied. So the mass of material waiting to go into the computers to be processed so that more work can be effectively done is not being processed simply because there are not the resources to enable that to be carried out. These are just some examples of where a report, commissioned by the Special Minister of State in this instance and brought in by the Government, has been set aside. Why? It is because the Minister says that he is not convinced that the statistical base which led to the recommendations made in that report is right or that the data is correct. Therefore, in a sense, he can disregard this very, very disturbing report. Governments will not be allowed to get away with that situation if we have closer collaboration between the Institute of Criminology and the police forces around Australia. We would then have an unassailable collection of data which would provide yet again specific examples of where resources are lacking and this Government would be forced to take some action. I have been very disturbed-for some time I had some responsibility in this area-that obvious cases of criminal fraud have simply been uninvestigated when the Australian taxpaying public could be saved a very great deal of money if a few additional resources of trained and experienced personnel could be recruited to enable those frauds to be investigated and those people who are abusing the system to be brought to justice. Less rhetoric and more action would be immensely useful. That may come out of the amendments which this Government has introduced into the Criminology Research Bill. I hope that it does. But one would also hope that the Government will not wait too long for additional material to be brought forward. It seems to me that there are very clear examples of where action is required immediately, where, if that action were taken and if additional resources of police personnel were made available, very great savings could be made and we would have a realistic approach with realistic actions being taken against those members of society who take advantage of their fellow citizens. As the honourable member for North Sydney has said, the Opposition welcomes the Bill. We hope that, by its passage, it will enable police forces and other relevant institutions around Australia to bring to bear a more consistent and a more detailed approach to their most important tasks. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.56) —Whilst on the face of it the Criminology Research Amendment Bill 1986 may not seem very important, it is, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, the first time that the principal Act is to be specifically amended since its inception in 1971. I agree with the Minister that the Australian Institute of Criminology has performed a most valuable service in providing a wide range of research material on criminal activities and the responses which society should make within the criminal justice system. The proposed amendments will, as well as increasing the size of the Criminology Research Council. expand the responsibilities of the Institute of Criminology and improve the efficiency of the research output of the Institute. Having expressed my approval of the Bill, I should like to make some comments about the need for more research with regard to the problems faced by juries. One of the reasons for the present legislation is to enable the Northern Territory to join the Commonwealth-State scheme covered by the Criminology Research Act. The Northern Territory government has had first-hand experience of the problems faced by juries-in the Chamberlain case, for example. However, before I refer to the specific problems for jury members, I should like to draw attention to the need for the Institute of Criminology to sponsor research projects on the operation of juries. I was interested to discover that, although a lot of criticism has been directed at juries, the majority of criminal cases are not decided by jury decision. In fact, in New South Wales only 0.9 per cent of major criminal cases are decided by juries. In nine out of 10 potential jury cases the defendant pleads guilty. Those people who attack the jury system should also appreciate that the right to trial by jury can be traced back to the Magna Carta. It is not a system which we should discard lightly, because governments are quite happy to use statutory authority to punish their citizens who, perhaps for reasons of poverty, or maybe rebellion, break their laws. Thus, for example, poaching became a summary offence in the eighteenth century in England because country juries refused to convict for poaching. Much more recently, again in England, a jury acquitted a civil servant of charges that he divulged secret information about the sinking of the Argentinian battleship General Belgrano in the Falklands war in contravention of the Official Secrets Act. These examples show how juries can curb the excessive zeal of governments to punish people who rebel against them. Governments have been very clever in circumventing the jury system by ensuring that a guilty plea results from police interrogation, or denial of bail, or perhaps some delay in trial proceedings and presumption of guilt, and a range of other similar devices. This is one area of research which I consider could be sponsored by the Institute of Criminology. I should like now to refer to an article headed `The Gang of Twelve', published in the February issue of the magazine Australian Society, by David Brown and David Neal. That article points out: It is important to understand the jury in terms of politics and the organisation of power rather than simply by reference to its practicality, rationality, expertise, economy or efficiency as a legal institution. Regretfully, my need to ensure that my remarks are relevant to the Bill under debate does not allow me to dwell on the matter. The quotation, however, could not be more apt when applied to two recent cases-namely, the case against the judge of the High Court of Australia, Lionel Murphy, and the case against the Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation, Norm Gallagher. The other aspect of the jury system upon which some research work could be encouraged by the Institute is the importance of members of the jury as democratic participants in the criminal justice system. Thus the jurors are required to apply the rules of law as explained to them by the judge to the facts relating to the case. They must also decide what those facts are. The problems arise, again as in the recent Chamberlain case in the Northern Territory, where witnesses, and particularly expert witnesses, contradict each other. One can speculate on what difficulties there might be for a jury trying to decide in a future case of criminal negligence the truth of conflicting evidence from physicists as to the danger levels of radioactivity at a uranium mine or an atomic bomb test site. In the Chamberlain case experts differed on a number of issues involving the authenticity of blood samples, the habits of dingoes and the behaviour of the police. It seems to me, as a layman, that the Institute should be sponsoring more research into the use of expert witnesses in criminal trials. In complex criminal trials the jury must be in an even more difficult position than that of the jury in the Chamberlain case. As has been suggested by John Phillips, QC, of the Victorian Bar: Why could not expert witnesses produce an issues paper which would go to each juror before the commencement of the trial? The issues paper would convey to each juror the matters in the trial which were disputed and those which were not disputed, on the part of both the Crown and the defence. However, to return to the problem of expert witnesses, why not change their role from one of acting for either the Crown or the defence to a role of giving expert evidence so that the jury can identify and understand the issues in the trial? Such skilled witnesses would, in effect, be skilled technical interpreters of the facts, in the same way as judges are skilled interpreters of the law. There is surely scope for research based on interviews and consultations with jurors who have been involved both in ordinary cases and in some of the more notorious and complex cases of recent years. It would be far better to undertake research in this way rather than to read the revelations of jurors in the sensational Press or perhaps to hear them on some popular radio show. Research of this nature could provide valuable insights into the deficiencies and problems associated with the existing jury system. There also appear to be problems associated with the selection of juries. Why should teachers and airline pilots be excused from jury service in Victoria and why is it that in New South Wales, residents in over ten per cent of elected subdivisions, mostly with higher than average Aboriginal populations, do not appear on jury lists? One could speculate on that and probably come up with the right conclusion. Nevertheless, why is it? There should be some research into this. I have raised these matters in the debate because I hope that the relevant people in the Institute of Criminology will read some of the things I have said and that it will mean that when they consider their sponsorship of research projects they might support people who intend to research the problems which juries are encountering. Perhaps we can come up with some answers about how we can improve the situation for jurors. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.06) —in reply-I say at the outset that I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I particularly value the contributions made by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) from the Government side because they did give a perception of the problems that effect our society at present. I am also well aware of the comments made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who led for the Opposition and also the comments by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who dealt with a number of matters. It was significant in the course of this debate that nobody really found any quarrel with the Criminology Research Amendment Bill. Most of the remarks were addressed to matters arising outside the nature of the legislation. In no way do I criticise people for that. I did the same thing when the Bill was introduced in 1971. The subject matter of this Bill encourages a discussion as to whether we can find more effective means of dealing with crime in our society, and probably the most effective way of dealing with it is to prevent it. What the Institute of Criminology is all about is research, gathering of statistics and information and leading the community and governments as to which way to go. This Bill is adding to the effectiveness of the Institute in terms of its membership, its research council, its board of management, its ability to collect statistics and to provide information and generally to enable it to conduct research. I will deal with some of the specifics which were mentioned. There was a suggestion that some of the matters that were the subject of the report as to research undertaken might appear on the surface to be irrelevant, for example, the Hobart Bridge disaster. I remind the honourable member for North Sydney that that occurred when the Labor Government was in office but the research obviously took place after that. The report related not to the bridge but what happened to the society that was disjointed, fractured and dismembered by the fact that people no longer could go across the bridge. There were other matters which dislocated that society and which might have led to some question of criminal tendencies. It was not so much a report on the bridge disaster but the fallout from the disaster and what happened to that society. That research was undertaken about 10 years ago, which the honourable member might recall, was when his Government was in office. There was also the matter of architectural design. It is not so much architecture or design but what follows from bad design or bad architecture. People in a confined space are unable to have adequate playing facilities or to enjoy normal amenities. Bad design can lead to bad conduct, which can lead to criminal conduct. That is the issue. It is not so much the design but the fallout from the mistakes that society makes. They are only periphery to a large number of areas that the Institute is interested in. I have always regarded myself as having some contribution to make because, as is known, I have in my electorate the largest penitentiary in Australia. I am well aware of the human beings who are in there. I was aware of perceptions 20-odd years ago that there was a common thread running through their problems in life. Usually these people come under notice at a very early age; usually they come from homes where there is not much love and affection, if any; usually they never had the support of their parents; and usually they never had the chance to remain at school. We can see all these matters very evident in our society. We grapple with these matters because we want society to be a very effective one, but we can understand the limitations on and the discrimination against people who do not readily have the benefit of a supporting family in their formative years, the ability to be kept at school and the ability to be well nurtured and advised. We have not all got those disabilities. Very few have, but it is significant that those disabilities show up very largely in the prison population. It is very significant that those disabilities show up at an early age. It is very significant that if those disabilities are not corrected, they lead to rather heavy crime. I think they are matters that everybody is concerned about. Not everybody can cope with the problems. Apart from having delinquency in young people or old people, one can imagine that young people who have delinquent parents have a problem. That is often the issue, yet the penalty goes on the young person because the others are no longer deemed to be offending. There has to be an understanding of all these matters, and it requires research. If one looks at domestic violence, which is a subject at issue, it will not readily be cured by penalities, although it is understandable that there should be effective remedies. The interesting thing about prisons is that most people are expected to come out of prisons rehabilitated, but the statistics might well show that they come out worse because of having mixed with a large number of groups and they now feel that there is no further shame or dis-honour because they have been incarcerated. These are fundamental issues. It is interesting to note that if we are talking about how to reform these people, we have to prevent them getting into the situation where they feel they have no further disgrace to suffer. The solutions are: Education, people taking an interest in them and people guaranteeing training in skills where there are opportunities. If one should look at the training done years ago in America and whether if we had prisons without walls we might get better results than incarcerating prisoners in institutions which really were developed in the last century. Without delaying the House too much, it is significant that this nation virtually started off on the basis of a brilliant oration by Edmund Bourke back in 1783 or thereabouts suggesting that something be done for the 100,000 prisoners in the United Kingdom who were incarcerated in confined spaces and what a good thing it would be to enable the settlement of Australia to commence. The speech was so good that the First Fleet sailed here in 1788 with a sample of those 100,000 prisoners. I suppose we have not done too bad from the point of view of being somewhat related to that issue, but it does show that it is not a new matter. I will deal with some of the matters that the honourable member for North Sydney adverted to. He was concerned about the limitation of the powers of the National Crimes Authority. Of course, we are always prepared to improve the Authority. It has to be a national authority because crime encompasses State responsibilities. There has to be a meeting of the appropriate State representatives to participate on a national basis but if, as has been stated by my colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Chairman of the Authority seeks wider powers they certainly would be seriously considered by the Government. The Authority does not see any need, as far as we are aware, to extend its powers at present. The Authority feels its powers are adequate and that there are no inhibitions or limitations. There was some suggestion that there were inadequate resources for the Australian Federal Police. No doubt they need better resources but in fairness to my colleague the Special Minister of State, who is the best Minister they have had for many a long day, these inadequacies and limitations of resources did not just suddenly occur. They could have been dealt with by other governments a long while back. I know he is now facing the problem of trying to catch up with the failure of previous administrations to provide resources, whether it be in training, personnel or the type of buildings in which the police are housed. These problems require massive investment. From the point of view of crime, I make the point that the Costigan report was an extraordinary thing which happened to the benefit of our society but which was not intended by the Government at the time. It set up the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to try to denigrate the painters and dockers union. That union certainly had its problems. It was surprising to find that so much crime was being perpetrated by the front men of the painters and dockers union and nobody dealt with the white collar criminals. The Costigan Commission helped to bring down the previous Administration because of its inability to deal with crime. No punitive action was taken for years against the white collar criminals who were masquerading as honourable people and actively participating in political life, apparently-still able to say that they were above reproach-but those are the people with whom we are now dealing in large numbers for conspiracy to defraud. That is interesting. I do not know why the Opposition does not address its mind to its failure to perform well when in government in ascertaining what was wrong. Revenue was being defrauded in massive amounts. The Commissioner of Taxation reported that there was default running into billions of dollars. The Government had to impose a fuel levy to try to make up for the diminution in income. Reports given to the Treasurer of the time showed what was happening because of straw companies and criminals masquerading under a facade. It is a bit late in the day to suggest that all these matters might suddenly have come to our notice. They brought down the previous Administration because of that Government's failure to address its mind to that problem. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), leading for the Opposition, said that VIDA, the Video Industry Distributors Association, the group interested in what is called film piracy, was not satisfied with what was happening under the Copyright Act. I understand that but I cannot understand why it is not satisfied with what the Government has announced that it will do. I remind the House that I announced in January that we were increasing the penalties again. The last time they were increased was in 1981. The only time that they had been increased before that was in 1968-but there has been a gap since 1981. The penalties which we will provide, and which have been the subject of announcement, we feel will be the toughest in the world. I am a bit surprised to find that VIDA has suddenly announced that it is not satisfied with those penalties. I am prepared to delay the introduction of the Bill to enable further consultation with it. The penalties provide, for example, that a body corporate can be fined up to a quarter of a million dollars per offence. The penalty rates will be 50 to 1,750 times higher than those in the 1968 Act or three to 33 times higher than those introduced in the 1981 Act, depending on the offence. For the first time there is the possibility of a gaol sentence of two years for the first offence of infringing copyright of a film. This sentence is an alternative or an addition to a fine of $1,500. The penalties, as far as we are aware, will be the highest in South East Asia. So it goes on. We ought to get it very clear. If VIDA feels that that provision is not up to standard, we would be surprised. I would like to hear from it. I understand why the honourable member for North Sydney might be handling a brief for it. I do not mind that, but the issue had better be made clear. These penalties were explained to VIDA's representative last year, who expressed satisfaction at the time. If VIDA wants further discussion on the matter I welcome it. Another matter raised was what was happening with the confiscation of profits. Legislation has been introduced in New South Wales. It follows from the material that the Commonwealth provided to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, called SCAG. The proposal was that we might have uniform legislation. We put the proposal to SCAG. Good luck to New South Wales. It has already been able to introduce the legislation but it was with our interest and support. We are very anxious that the Bill be introduced in the Budget session. We will take into account, as we have to as a national government, all the responses from the States in these matters because we want uniformity of action. We have waited for that information to come in. I am confident and my office has advised me that that will happen. None of those matters are contained in this Bill but it is the nature of this Parliament not to inhibit debate. They are worth while being raised. I will not delay the House any further except to say that I welcome the support for the Bill. It will give added strength to the fight against crime. One other matter that ought to be adverted to is that crime is not limited to the geographical boundaries of Australia. It is now international. It is important for us to enter into extradition treaties and mutual assistance treaties. This Government is already miles ahead of any previous government in arranging for extradition treaties to be completed and entering negotiations on mutual assistance treaties. I need not labour the point but it will be a primary task of my administration to guarantee that when we are chasing criminals we do not face the physical barrier of their having left this country and that when following the money trail we do not face the limitation of not knowing whence it came or where it has gone. There is a responsibility within the tax and banking areas for financial institutions to understand now that the big issue in crime is the laundering of money and the tracing of its ownership, because that gives an added intelligence string to law enforcement agencies, police or others, to detect criminals and confiscate their profits and assets. I welcome the co-operation of other countries in that respect. I thank honourable members for their unanimous support of this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.22) —These Bills complement the rural industries research legislation approved by Parliament in September. Six of the Bills were introduced last week while another-the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill-has been lying on the table since August. Each provides for increases to the maximum rate of levy on produce for research activities, broadly to a level of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. In most cases the operative rates of levy are between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent of the gross value of the product. These Bills do not automatically raise the operative rates. They provide for increases in the levy, as required by the industry, to be set by regulation in consultation with the various industries. Levy payments up to the operative rate will be matched by the Commonwealth, and the benefits will accrue through out export earnings to all Australians. It is a great investment in this very important export sector of our economy. Expenditure will return great dividends to the community. The operative and new maximum rates have been detailed in the second reading speeches of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the explanatory memoranda. It is most unfortunate that once again some industry bodies have not been paid the courtesy of notification that these Bills were coming into the House. It is extraordinary that such legislation, albeit complementary to last year's rural industry research fund Bills, should come into the House without some industry peak bodies being told the new maximum rates. I know that the industry groups as a matter of course maintain frequent contact with the Minister and the Department but it is puzzling that the advice on these Bills was kept secret. The only explanation I can see is a directive from the Minister's office demanding that no advice be given to certain industry groups. What other explanation can there be for this happening time and again, not only on these Bills but also on far more controversial legislation last year? I ask the question: Is the Minister so bound by pressures from his Cabinet, his colleagues and his Caucus that he is unable to communicate with the industries to the extent that he should in respect of legislation that has far-reaching effects upon their industry? Mr Hawker —No room for Budget cuts. Mr HUNT —There is no room for Budget cuts; I want to talk about that later. It is unacceptable that he has not extended the common courtesy of advice to some of the industry leaders and bodies over the introduction of the Bills. It is totally unacceptable for a Minister to act in this way. Despite the Minister's apparent discourtesy, the Opposition has no qualms about the new levy schedules and offers the Bills a clear passage through both Houses of Parliament. Now that we are likely to see future increases in the funding of research projects, it is important that the funds be allocated with the first and foremost objectives of raising industry productivity and achieving greater economies of scale in handling, marketing and promotion. I see handling and marketing promotion as absolutely fundamental. By and large our farmers are amongst the most efficient farmers in the world. They operate at the lowest cost of product at the farm gate and they also operate their farms at among the lowest cost capital value in the Western world. Yet the farm sector is receiving among the lowest returns to capital. Clearly, when we are facing a corrupted world market situation as a result of the common agricultural policy and also the prospect of the application of the United States Farm Bill, it is absolutely fundamental that we do everything in our power to ensure that our research is directed to improve our marketing strategy, to improve our handling strategy, to reduce our transportation costs and also to improve our promotion. So often people in the farm sector say to me that the New Zealanders are outstripping us in promotion in markets in which we are battling to hold our place. We cannot afford to fall behind other competing countries in the areas of promotion, packaging and presentation of the product. I hope that the research funds-not all, but a considerable percentage-are directed towards that area of research. Australian industries are world leaders in productivity and efficiency but there is always new ground to be broken. More than a dozen rural research efforts will now be controlled by common guidelines and by new councils. Last financial year the pig, barley, dried fruits, chicken meat, dairy and livestock research contributions totalled more than $7.4m and attracted Federal funding on a matching basis. The councils have been charged with a great responsibility. It is to be hoped that they will carry out their duties at the same high standard to which we had become accustomed prior to the legislation last year. I turn briefly to each of the Bills. Operative dairy levies are currently 1.2c per 100 litres of whole milk or an equivalent 30c per 100 kilograms of butter fat, representing about one-tenth of the level of the new maximum rates. The industry has sought an immediate increase to 2c whole milk or 50c butter fat. It is to be hoped that this wish can be honoured as soon as possible after the legislation receives assent. The relatively low level of industry contribution to dairy research has placed a heavy strain on the non-matchable reserves of the Australian Dairying Research Committee to maintain its current effort. It is pleasing that on this occasion the Minister has chosen to work with the dairy industry rather than adopt the irresponsible confrontationist approach adopted last year. That was a regrettable state of affairs; it really was. I cannot understand how any Minister would allow himself to be a party to a con trick. It was a con trick last year. There was a meeting here, organised by the Premier of Victoria on the eve of the Victorian election, at which agreement was reached on a marketing scheme. There were headlines all over the place of `milk marketing issue resolved'. What a farce that was. I cannot image that this Minister would allow himself and his integrity to be dragged into the gutter by such political tactics. Of course, we then had that legislation pushed into the House which was totally unacceptable to the industry and to the Parliament. Only five per cent of the world dairy production is traded but Australia, particularly the Victorian dairy sector, is a relatively large participant on export markets. Presently about 30 per cent of industry production goes into exports. Last year saw an increase of 29.4 per cent in dairy export production. It does the Minister no credit to proclaim the virtues of research legislation aimed at increasing our share of exports when his original marketing plan would have all but decimated the export sector of the industry, particularly in Victoria. The Minister will regain some of his lost credibility in the eyes of the dairy industry if he seeks to co-operate fully as negotiations over the dairy marketing plan draw to a close and Cabinet takes its decision. I hope that those ideologues around the Cabinet table this time do not put a spike in the wheel of an attempt to get a sensible, practical and acceptable-it is acceptable-dairy marketing plan for the industry. The scope for increased research within the chicken meat industry comes at an exciting period in that industry's development. Companies along the manufacturing and distribution chain already participate strongly in research and development and this has been complemented by a Chicken Meat Research Committee budget which last year funded 20 projects on a matching dollar for dollar basis to a total of about half a million dollars. Every effort must be made in research to exploit further a market which has seen per capita consumption in Australia rise by 50 per cent in the past decade. The Chicken Meat Federation Executive Director, Dr Fairbrother, made the very valid point at this year's National Agricultural Outlook Conference that changing attitudes of governments and their departments of agriculture have tended to result in the demise of research teams in some areas. He also called for greater support for the industry at the tertiary education level, especially through our universities and particularly in the field of disease control. Given the intensive research and development effort along the industry's production chain, I would not expect contributions to reach the maximum level in the foreseeable future but I do encourage the producers to think seriously about raising the present level from the very low 0.1 per cent per chicken hatch. The industry appears to be on the threshold of developing into a wide range of new chilled or deboned products. While development will be largely the responsibility of the companies, growers can assist by intensifying their research effort in dollar terms to minimise the risk of disease and to maximise the market potential. Among the significant work of the Pig Industry Research Committee in its 15-year history has been studies into a national carcass grading system and, more recently, electronic marketing. the increased levy rate will give the pig industry a chance to accelerate development in these areas, as is occurring in other livestock industries. I turn to the barley and dried fruits industries which, of course, are export oriented. The barley growers in particular face increasingly difficult competition on world markets. That became abundantly clear to me in my recent visit to the United Kingdom, Brussels and Rome. I came away with the impression that there was no doubt that, if this trade war between the United States and the European countries eventuates on the scale that is feared, we could see a fall in wheat prices of 15 to 20 per cent. Of course, barley prices are already very low world-wide, largely because of the great stock piles in Europe-- Mr Andrew —Look at the cost increases. Mr HUNT —The enormous cost increases that are occurring on our own domestic front have made the industry almost totally unprofitable. In fact people in my electorate are saying it would probably pay them this year just to leave their cultivated areas bare. That does not augur well for export earnings and State revenues from railways. It will do nothing for the export income which is so necessary to repay our overseas loans and improve our balance of payments figures. The standard of produce at all stages of the production chain is vital to shoring up our hard won markets. Between them the two industries are spending about $2m a year on research which is of direct benefit in maintaining industry standards. The most publicised change to rural research over the past year has been in the meat industry through the creation of a new Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. This change has attracted particular interest because of the enormous industry outlays involved. In 1984-85 its budget exceeded $8.5m. Research is especially important at the moment in view of the progress towards such innovations as CALM-the computer aided livestock marketing system. There has been some contention within the livestock industry over the burden of levies applied for a variety of purposes. However, it should be noted that the former Australian Meat Research Committee adopted a final budget, some $3m beyond expected revenue, in order to satisfy adequately its research demands. The result was a heavy drain on reserve research funds. It is crucial that we do not fall behind our international competitors in the productivity race. Our task is being made increasingly difficult through changes that are occurring in the United States, such as the introduction of the United States Farm Bill and its export enhancement program which not only heighten the already stiff competition we face on global markets-Europe has now displaced Australia as the world's largest beef exporter-but also introduce additional burdens such as the $1 or so per head levy on United States imports to fund its own research and promotion work. The beef industry, which has been going along in a fairly stable fashion, faces a possible threat if President Reagan's Administration decides to go down the track of reconstruction of the dairy industry in that country. It is talking about total farm kills of dairy herds. That would result in the throwing on to the domestic market of a large quantity of meat for manufacturing purposes. That is an important market for Australia; it is the hamburger market, a market that is so important to Queensland and the Northern Territory, and the situation will need to be watched very carefully. I know that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has been having discussions with the United States Administration and I have had talks with the authorities here. We want to continue in a bipartisan fashion to maintain pressure on the United States Government to honour its verbal undertakings. It has given such undertakings but the difficulty will be when it starts to unload its wheat or beef or whatever-more so wheat, probably-on to world markets in one great hit. That could really corrupt world market prices even further than they are corrupted at present. I commend the Cattle Council of Australia. It is an excellent Council which is doing a lot of its own research work. I had the privilege last year of attending its conference up at Mackay. Mr Braithwaite —A good place. Mr HUNT —It is an excellent place. The honourable member for Dawson is a fine member, too. He looked after me very well while I was up there in his home town. It was a great pleasure to enjoy his hospitality and cordiality. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable gentleman might like to maintain relevance. Mr HUNT —I look forward to visiting your home some time, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having its $7m four-year revival package adopted by the Government was a considerable achievement of the Cattle Council. That will greatly accelerate its progress towards computerised marketing. I give credit where it is due to the Minister for having won this battle on the industry's behalf. Mr Simmons —He is a good Minister. Mr HUNT —He seems to be a good bloke but he is disappointing because he is not winning the battles he needs to win. He is picking up a few wins here and there, but he is losing out on a lot of the major issues. He was bold enough to make a statement yesterday, which I want to talk about in a moment, and I hope that he keeps shouting from the rooftops. The rural sector wants from the Minister a real sign of effort and courage and a strong stand for the future of agriculture in this country. It is crucial that the Minister apply the same pro-industry attitude to other functions of his portfolio. That is the point I am trying to make. No amount of extra research will benefit rural industries unless they are given the ability to maximise production and earnings. There is more than a touch of irony in the fact that we are approving legislation today which raises the future level of government spending. This morning's Age carries the following reported comment from the Minister: The Government has just about reached the limit in cutting items line by line and it may be far more sensible to take all our hard medicine in one area. It is about time the Minister stood up to this across the board approach. It is simple to get the toe-cutters in and start chopping but if we really want to get government expenditure down, in what areas must we make the cuts? Is anybody prepared to answer that question? The biggest area is social welfare, followed by health, and the third area is public debt. They are the three big items. The Minister has quite rightly pointed to the fact that it is no good trying to have across the board cuts in an area like primary industry, where the Government has ripped off $442m in its three Budgets and two mini-Budgets since it came to office. Outlays in primary industry make up 0.5 per cent of total Budget outlays. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr HUNT —The figure is 0.5 per cent. I accept that a further 12 1/2 per cent cut in spending next year will be partly due to the Wheat Finance Fund one-off payment this year. Let us put it in context. The refund to growers was $105m but the total allocation to the Minister's Department in 1986-87 will now be less than $300m. This is notwithstanding the fact that we are increasing the limits for research in this legislation, and that must be done if we have any respect for the industry or interest in its future productivity and efficiency. It is a pity that a portfolio serving industries which produce more than 40 per cent of our export earnings is going backwards. It is a tragedy that the primary industry area has been singled out for crude and harsh cutting treatment since the Hawke Government came to power. The 12 1/2 per cent cut is predicated on the assistance being made available to the Queensland sugar industry. That commitment has not yet been forthcoming because the Government persists in playing politics with the National Party Government in Queensland. The Federal Government could not care about the sugar industry; it is only trying to pull the rug from under Premier Joh's feet. It has no hope of doing that. Mr Slipper —He is a great Premier. Mr HUNT —He is a great Premier; the great leader of this nation. What has the Minister seen fit to do? Is he trying to soften up the Australian community, or make his own colleagues, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and others, face up to the sort of rational answers that are necessary if they are to bring down their Budget deficit to within reasonable bounds? I bet this Government is sorry that it introduced Medicare. What a monster that is. It has really burdened the Budget beyond belief. The previous Government rebuilt allocations to primary industry, including research, after the disaster of the Whitlam years, and coupled these with responsible macro-economic and industry policies designed to give the rural sector full opportunities to compete on world markets. We have seen much of that work being undone in the short space of three years. We had to restore what the Whitlam Government took away and we will have to do it all over again. Mr Fitzgibbon —You won't get a chance, Ralph. Mr HUNT —By jove, watch out! We are on the war path up there. Mr Barry Jones —This is not even a broadcasting day and you are talking tough. Mr HUNT —I know. I am enjoying it because I am getting it off my chest. The Minister for Primary Industry proclaims the virtues of his Government's agricultural and macroeconomic policies at a time of unprecedented downturn in the rural economy. Opposition members-Where is he? Mr HUNT —I hope that he has the tiger by the tail in the Cabinet room. If he has him I hope he sticks to him because he has to do better than he has done in the past. What is the point of boosting the research effort when we have a tax package aimed at destroying the incentive to produce, when the Government refuses to pass on the full benefits of falling world oil prices, when it has torn $442m directly from farmers in three years and when interest rates are being artificially propped up to save the accord mark 2 of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with the inordinate cost being paid by farm and small business enterprises in particular? The small farmers, those with debts of $100,00, will be slugged as a result of the announcement today. Already the interest rates on some farm bank loans have tipped 23 per cent. Is there no end to this spiral? The tragedy for Australia is not just in human and social terms. We are staring in the face an economic catastrophe which threatens the living standards of all Australians. I do not think the majority of the people have realised it yet. Interest rates, at their current record levels, are wreaking long term structural damage for the rural sector and those small businesses that depend upon it. I am receiving dozens of reports from people who have tumbled into a financial abyss from which they are unlikely to recover. It is through no fault of their own. These people have not taken a gamble in the hope of achieving windfall financial gain; they have simply tried to achieve greater economies of scale as a result of research by expanding their enterprises, even though long term returns to farm capital have been less than 2 per cent per annum and this year will average minus 6 per cent. This year, for every net dollar of income earned by farmers another $14 will be created along the economic chain. I think the time has come when not only should we be debating research Bills of this nature to try to improve the productivity, the efficiency and the capacity of our agricultural sector to compete on even corrupted markets world wide, but also we should settle down in this Parliament. Perhaps we ought to have a select committee or something. I think the crisis is so great in the rural sector of Australia that it has gone beyond party politicing; and I mean that. It is a very serious social and economic problem of great magnitude and one that must be approached with some sincerity and understanding. Just to demonstrate the need for research and stepped-up research I would like, with the approval of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) to incorporate in Hansard the farm economic indicators from 1976-77 to 1985-86. I would be grateful if the Minister would have a look at the table. I think that gives a fairly complete picture of the difficulties we are all facing. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FARM ECONOMIC INDICATORS 1976-1986 Year Farm Income ($) Terms of Trade Rate of Return (%) Inc. Appreciation 1976-77... 9,700 93 9.8 1977-78... 5,215 89 7.3 1978-79... 16,316 101 18.7 1979-80... 23,868 107 17.6 1980-81... 16,870 100 9.0 1981-82... 19,770 89 9.3 1982-83 a.... 542 85 1.7 1983-84... 23,197 82 12.8 1984-85... 19,470 81 5.1 1985-86 b.... 6,700 77 2.0 a. 1982-83 shows effects of draught b. 1985-86 projected figures (Source: BAE) Trends indicated: 1. Farm incomes increased under Coalition government until the depressing effects of the drought in the early 1980s. 2. Since Labor came to power in 1983- Farm income has dropped from $23,197 p.a. to $6,700. Farmers terms of trade have deteriorated. Real rates of return to capital have dropped dramatically. This year's return is projected to 2.0% compared to 12.8% in 1983-84. Mr HUNT —I presented to the Minister for Primary Industry in this House 14 suggestions for immediate action the Government could and should take to get the burden of its financial policies off the backs of the farmers and the small businesses. I seek leave to table the 14-point plan, Mr Deputy Speaker. Leave granted. Mr HUNT —I thank the Minister very much. Actually he is one of my favourite Ministers. I hope that the Government responds to that plan. If it does and it seeks to implement at least the body of those recommendations it will ease a lot of the pressure that is falling upon the shoulders of this important sector of the Australian community. It would not solve all the problems but it would represent a move in the right direction for government policy. I commend these Bills and these initiatives to the Government. I ask the Minister to honour his comments of last Thursday when he said that the Opposition was taking a responsible approach to these crucial issues. I just hope that his Caucus, his colleagues and Cabinet Ministers will also take a responsible, sensible approach. I just hope that they stop singling out some of the poorer people in this community. A lot of them are poor. I notice that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) is in the chamber. He represents a lot of people in dire difficulties. Members on both sides of this House are carrying a very big burden on their shoulders. That burden is trying to find some solutions to help a lot of people in the rural areas of Australia. I appeal to those people who are currently considering the primary industry package to give it all the support that they can if it is substantial-if it is not substantial they should throw it out and start again. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.53) —The legislation which is before us today deals with a broad range of rural industries. Mr McGauran —For heavens sake, this man is not qualified to represent farmers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland, who is not occupying his seat, is interjecting. He is in error on both points. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your protection from these people in the National Party of Australia who believe that they have some divine right to rule. The legislation before us today deals with a broad range of rural industries. They are: Barley, dried fruits, livestock, the pig industry, the dairy industry and the poultry industry. As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has said, this is very important legislation in relation to research. As the legislation itself deals with the machinery administration I would like to direct my remarks more to the matters that have been outlined by the honourable member for Gwydir. He outlined the importance of research but I would like to take him up on a few points in relation to it. Research is fine provided people have the ability to put it into operation after the work has been done and new methods or products have been developed. One of the clear indications I think we have in the rural sector today is that, because of the restrictions in some industries, those industries which are in diabolical trouble; that is the sugar industry, the dairy industry- Mr Simmons —The wheat industry. Mr CUNNINGHAM —To some extent, the wheat industry, although it is not in the serious difficulty that the others are in- Mr Hawker —Some are. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Some are because there is some drought country, there is no doubt about that. We fully understand that there are problems out in the bush. What I want to deal with in my remarks is whether we put into practice the research results that we have achieved in Australia. In many cases the answer is no. The honourable member for Gwydir said that he hoped that this Government would be able to do something. For many years we have watched the rural industries decline and those that are in real trouble have suffered from over-regulation. That over-regulation and pandering have created a situation where, those in the industry who should have been making decisions have not made them because of the structure under which they were working. The industry on which I wish to concentrate-and this matter was mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir-is the dairy industry, and dairy research. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has developed a process involving the hydrolising of milk which extracts lactose from the milk. Lactose in milk is a problem that affects people in Asia and Africa. Many products which have been developed cannot be sold overseas simply because they cannot be used by the people who require them. Even though this plant had been developed, it was not being put into operation because of the structure of the dairy industry. The regulated structure of many of our industries takes away any incentive for individual companies, whether co-operatives or private companies, to invest in new research once it has been developed. Hence, we have seen the sorts of problems that have affected the dairy industry, which has massive supplies of butter, cheese, milk powders that no one wants to buy, with depressed world markets. At the same time our research people have developed programs that should have been put into operation. The present Labor Government is taking a different approach from the former conservative approach. While the conservatives preach and carry on about free markets, they are the greatest advocates of tying up industry. They bring in regulation after regulation; they criticise Labor governments for being socialist. We are very minor in our approach to socialism. We have a policy of socialism to the extent required, but the National Party wants socialism for socialism's sake in the farming industry and nowhere else. National Party members want everything else deregulated. So we have these problems in these industries. The dairy and sugar industries are two industries which are well and truly overregulated. Who are the people using their votes in this House to deny deregulation? It is the National Party and Liberal Party politicians. If one goes into the matter seriously, the evidence is quite clear. The honourable member for Gwydir said that I had a responsibility to people in my electorate. I take that responsibility and I have gone out and argued these matters. In my electorate the people on the land and in the country towns fully realise that regulation has been strangling them. They hoped that previous conservative governments which preached deregulation would have done something about it, but they did not. They allowed it to continue to the stage when it got into crisis. The Labor Government is doing something about the situation. I make a plea to Opposition members. When the legislation comes back to this House again this year for the deregulation of the dairy industry, milk factories should be allowed to take the decision to use the research expertise that has been developed in Australia. We should put that knowledge into operation on behalf not just of the farmers but the Australian community. We need the exports, but we must have products to export. We have the ability in this respect. I plead with Opposition members to stop their restrictive approach and allow the Labor Government to correct these anomalies. That is the first appeal I make. For all the crisis that is supposed to exist out there, the biggest crisis is in that area. Industries in the rural sector must be released from the shackles of regulations imposed upon them by years of conservative governments. That is the only way in which the sugar industry and the dairy industry will be able to get out and compete on the world market. I move to a couple of other industries which are in diabolical trouble. Money for research is very important, but other factors are involved. For example, there is a great deal of concern in the rural sector in the wheat industry. Much of that concern is projected to the future, and perhaps the American Farm Bill will have a diabolical effect. We do not as yet know what the full effects will be. In looking at figures for the wheat industry one must take into account the drought. That drought broke, there was a massive crop, and a big lift in income. However, the figures undoubtedly will show a downturn now. There are drought problems in a lot of areas, such as the Mallee in Victoria. I instance an article in the Australian Financial Review, which I believe everybody in this House should read. Certainly everybody who is interested in the so-called crisis should read it. It is a student economics brief put out by the Financial Review and is headed `The facts behind Australia's rural crisis'. It details clearly the true position in respect of the rural crisis. I give the House a couple of figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which are clearly detailed in that brief and show the disparities that can occur in the wheat industry. The brief reads: . . . the bottom 12.5 per cent of producers in the cropping industries is expected to have an average negative income of minus $54,000 over 1985-86. That is a large figure, but the top 12.5 per cent in this category are expected to receive an average income of $53,600. When one talks of crisis and rural problems, one must appreciate that while some sectors are experiencing serious difficulties, other sectors in the very same industry are doing quite well. There is no doubt that the real net value of rural production is expected to fall, and the BAE figures show that. It has occurred because of the combined impact of a 7 per cent increase in costs, a lower increase than has been experienced for many years, a 3 per cent fall in production, reflecting the figures across the board relating to wheat, and an increase of only 3 per cent in average prices received. One has a problem that is easily projected but one has to look hard at where the crisis is. The proportion of farmers assessed as being at risk by the BAE is projected to increase from 5 per cent in 1984-85 to 7 per cent in 1985-86. Most of that 2 per cent increase no doubt will be attributed to the pressures coming on people who have large debts on their properties. Again, one must look at where the problem arises. Mr Hawker —High interest rates. Mr CUNNINGHAM —High interest rates on a very low equity, with the low equity being caused perhaps by people moving into the industry in the face of high land prices. Mr Andrew —Twenty per cent is not a high equity. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It may be that in the long term 20 per cent will have a very good effect for the majority of people in the industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The cognate debate makes relevance somewhat challenging, but the Chair is moved to draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the relevance of his remarks is somewhat tenuous. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I agree that the Bills deal with many industries across the board; they deal with research and the need to collect money for it. When governments take decisions on where money is to be spent and where industries are to be encouraged to spend it, one must consider the overall effects. In my remarks I was trying to develop the argument that the price of land has a great bearing on any decision that is made in any industry. The price of land in developing areas Australia-wide far exceeds the earning capacity to be expected of any industry. Once the process gets out of step, it becomes a total burden on the rural sector as a whole. I cite further figures from the student economics brief in the Australian Financial Review which point to the amount of borrowing which takes place in farming. Twenty years ago for each dollar farmers had in the bank they owed banks 75c. Now, however, farmers owe $3.09 for every dollar they have on deposit. The brief points out: This dramatic rise in rural debt raises an interesting question. If the longer term outlook for our rural industries is so poor, why have rural producers borrowed so much and why have lending agencies been so keen to lend it to them? A lot of borrowing has been speculative and this has pushed up the price of land. If we are to put legislation through this House dealing with research, we must see that the money is directed into areas where there will be real returns for the economy and the country. The only way to ensure real returns is for the country to be able to earn money from the products we can sell overseas. The rural sector is very important and comprises 46 per cent of the economy. It embraces not only the farming sector but people in the country towns who have a big effort to put into earning export income. They are part of the total area. If that is not achieved and if our industries do not earn sums to pay for our import bills, any legislation earmarking research money will be wasted if it goes in the wrong direction. Although there are stresses in the rural sector, in the rural towns and cities, I believe that those stresses cannot be overcome simply by people demonstrating in such a way as to demand what is not possible. The Government's economic policies are heading down the right track. The legislation the Government is putting through Parliament is giving industries the opportunity to develop the sorts of programs required to take advantage of the research that is taking place in Australia. Unless we do so, and get to the forefront, we will not be able to continue to export many of the products we should be exporting overseas. We have implemented many policies in this area. Our Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has just come back from overseas. He has been negotiating with the Americans on what is probably the most vital issue, the export market for the wheat industry. These are the sorts of things that require a unified approach right across the board, not an approach of just attacking the Government on issues. Everybody knows that having the economy in place and running correctly is the best thing we can do for the rural sector. I believe that we on this side of the House should stick to our guns. Our policies are working. We are seeing results. Anybody who wants to get the facts should read the `Student Economics Brief' in the Australian Financial Review, the best article I have read on the farm crisis. That is the way the Government sees the situation. I believe that the policies we are putting into place will be accepted by the community. Within two years we will be seeing a turnaround. Not only will the economy be well and truly on the mend, but also we will be returned to this side of the House with more seats than ever. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.07) —I endorse everything the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) has said. He has covered the wide range of primary industry Bills extremely well. He has also touched on some of the problems facing agriculture today. I take issue with the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), however, on a couple of the points he mentioned during his speech. He talked about the increase in costs facing farmers. He mentioned the fact that, although net farm income is falling, cost increases will be only seven per cent. Whilst that figure may be better than it has been in the past, it does not alter the fact that it is double that of our trading partners. So, when we compete on export markets we are still at a very grave disadvantage. The honourable member also mentioned the question of land prices in relation to earnings. I agree with him that there is quite a big gap between the two, but I also point out that one of the reasons why land prices, particularly around city areas but also generally, are a lot higher is that many people in the cities would like to buy small farms. They are going out to the country, having earnt their money elsewhere, and competing in the market, thereby pushing up the price of land often to a price above its productive value. We cannot change that. It is a fact of life that is going to stay around. Another point the honourable member for McMillan made was that we should be encouraging people to invest in productive assets. I do not think anybody in this chamber would disagree with him. However, I point out to him that a couple of decisions made by this Government did very much the reverse. People are being encouraged by two policies in particular to invest more and more in housing. I refer to the assets test and the much mooted capital gains tax. Both are examples of government measures that will encourage people to spend more and more on housing, a totally unproductive asset. That is something honourable members ought to consider. I can assure them that this is a serious matter. I have spoken to many people in the city who are quite happily upgrading their houses, even if they do not really need to. They see it as a great way of maintaining their assets. As I said, I support the words of the Deputy Leader of the National Party. We all welcome the Government's moves in the area of rural research. They represent a recognition of the need for government action in this area and a certain level of public funding. I raise the matter of public funding because some people might wonder whether the matching of industry money with Commonwealth money on a dollar for dollar basis is justified. There are four reasons why we might say it is very much justified. The first reason is that the cost of technology and other expense involved in rural research is far beyond the means of individual farmers. I do not think anyone would question that. The second reason is that the long term benefits will flow through to the entire community. We have to consider also that some research will be directed to externalities such as public health, safety and the general quality of life. The third reason is that there is little incentive for private research as it is a high risk exercise. In many cases it is unlikely to yield returns, particularly when patents are not available. This raises the question of plant variety rights, a subject I will come back to. I refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources of October 1982 entitled `The Commonwealth's role in Rural Research and Extension Services'. Page 12 states: A final justification for Government financial support for rural research is that it is a good investment . . . The IAC, which conducted a joint study with CSIRO . . . considered the question in general and concluded . . . that rural research has been highly profitable both to producers and the community at large and (the IAC) sees no reason why it should not continue to be effective. That quotation justifies very strongly why the Government should be involved in rural research and I think that all honourable members present in the chamber would support the views it contains. Given the factors I have mentioned, the importance of the research and the natural efficiency of the Australian primary sector-we have seen the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) very much at pains to run around the countryside on the weekend telling television audiences how important and efficient farming is-the desirability of increased research into and development of Australian rural industries is very clear. However, I question how deeply the present Government is committed to this goal. Although it has agreed to increase funding for rural research, when we look a bit more closely at some of the other things it has done, we find that it has cut funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for research in general by $10m in 1984-85. Furthermore, as the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who unfortunately has just left the chamber, would well know, the CSIRO is to reduce its emphasis on rural research by something like three per cent. When the Government talks about the importance of research, it ought to be consistent. Because it is not, I question whether the Government is serious about rural Australia. As I have mentioned before, the Government's lack of real commitment to promoting rural research and development is highlighted by its failure to take any action on plant variety rights. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources recommended legislation in this area almost two years ago. In fact, some legislation was introduced by the former Government something like four years ago. Despite that, we have seen nothing from this Government. All the Government has done has been to conduct yet another inquiry into plant variety rights. I understand that this inquiry was supposed to report to the Minister in September last year. To date we have heard nothing. If the Government wants to show that it is serious about helping some sections of the rural sector, it should support plant variety rights. We already know that the failure to introduce plant variety rights is having a number of restrictive effects on our agricultural industries. Mr Andrew —And horticulture. Mr HAWKER —It is also having a restrictive effect on horticulture. These restrictive effects are stifling private enterprise. Furthermore, they are a significant drawback to the introduction of new plants in Australia. Anyone who has looked into this matter at all and who understands it would realise that there is a huge potential to increase the production in horticulture and various seeds and grasses in Australia with the introduction of plant variety rights. The most serious effect of not having plant variety rights is that it reduces Australia's ability to compete in world markets. Potentially, Australia has a huge export industry in horticultural and other plants, partly because our seasons are the opposite of those of many of our major trading partners. However, while there are not plant variety rights, we cannot compete because we cannot import the preferred varieties of plants to research. Local vegetable growers, in particular, are being severely disadvantaged in relation to our overseas competitors because the lack of plant variety rights discourages research in breeding activities which would improve productivity and allow them to compete with some of the varieties that are already available overseas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Chair invites the honourable member to be a little more relevant to the question before the House. He has been given some latitude to put his point but I would be derelict in my duty if I did not require him to be relevant. Mr HAWKER —I was just trying to point out that with plant variety rights we could increase research in these areas, which would go a long way towards assisting primary industry. I will conclude on plant variety rights by mentioning, as an example, that local growers have no access to the preferred variety of sweet-corn which was developed in the United States. This is one example of where we cannot complete on what is a fairly lucrative market. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to take these points on board. I hope he will respond to this matter when he sums up the debate because plant variety rights have an integral part in research into agriculture. I hope he will be prepared to give us a response to what is yet another committee of inquiry and tell us that he is prepared to introduce plant variety rights on a step-by-step basis so that everyone will benefit. Another matter I would like to touch on is the imbalance in research into beef. When one looks at where the funds come from and where they are going one sees that research into beef very much favours northern Australia, something which I dare say you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would favour. However, those who, like me, happen to live further south see this as something of an injustice. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be aware the funds levied on beef producers and matched by the Commonwealth are considerable. Together with all the other research that was being done into the beef industry, it was something like $28m in 1982-83. However, if one analyses where the funds are generated in various parts of Australia and compares that with where the funds are allocated for research, one finds there is quite a large imbalance. To give some figures, 42 1/2 per cent of the levy on livestock that goes towards beef research is raised in the northern areas of Australia. In the southern areas 57 1/2 per cent of the levy is collected. However, when one looks at the allocation of research funds that are considered to be specific to either northern or southern Australia, one finds that the figures are somewhat reversed. Something like 55 1/2 per cent of all research into beef is allocated to northern areas, and of the funds that are specific only about 34 per cent is allocated to southern areas. So I think we would have to question the equity of who is paying for the research for whom. The CSIRO research into beef is directed even more towards the northern areas and the imbalance is far greater. The question we should be asking ourselves is where the funds can be best allocated to maximise the benefits from beef research. I accept that in the past there may have been very good reasons for increasing research in the northern area because it was seen as an area of development. I suggest to honourable members that this situation has now been rectified to a large extent. There is greater potential in southern areas to increase productivity by additional research than the amount of funds that are being directed to that area would indicate. If one looks with more detail at what the CSIRO is doing one finds that its various projects received over 80 per cent of the research funds of the Australian Meat Research Committee, as it was called, now the Australian Meat Research Development Corporation. So, all up, 86 per cent of CSIRO's research was in areas of northern significance. As well, CSIRO allocations accounted for over 76 per cent of all funds allocated to research of northern significance. I suggest that the Minister take a close look at this imbalance. I hope that those involved in allocating these funds will take this point on board because by any objective analysis it would be hard to believe that this imbalance towards northern areas in the allocation of research funds is in the best interests of maximising benefits for the beef industry. As I have said, there may have been good reasons in the past for doing this, but I think the time has come to rectify that imbalance. There are a few matters to which I should like to refer in the short time available to me. The question really is: How can primary producers be expected to take seriously this Government's express commitment to rural research in the light of its appalling record in other rural matters? How can farmers take advantage of any results of research when access to finance which allows them to make use of new technologies is denied because of the shockingly high interest rates? Only this morning one major bank-Westpac Banking Corporation-announced a further rise in interest rates to 22 per cent. I suggest that other banks are likely to follow. This highlights some of the problems facing the rural industry. We are doing this research; it is important that we do it; it is important that it be increased, but farmers have to be in a position to take advantage of it. A typical example was brought to my attention last Friday when farmers demonstrated outside Parliament House. When I spoke to one of the farmers he said: `I really cannot just stand by and watch 25 years of hard work go down the drain'. This is the real problem that is facing rural Australia and it is the one this Government ought to be addressing pretty quickly. While interest rates remain so high-it is worth repeating that they are the highest in real terms for over 50 years-farmers will continue to bear the brunt of this Government's dubious economic policies. It is not just a matter of saying: `We will do something for research'. We have to look at the overall package. A lot of problems in rural areas need addressing. I believe that they should be addressed a lot more quickly than they are being addressed because obviously any results from research will take time and they will take money to implement. There is no point in producing results if we cannot put them into practice. As I have said, the Government seems to have a real hang up about the rural industries. We have seen them become a target, with high interest rates, as I have mentioned, and quarantining of farm losses and the proposed capital gains tax. These measures are blatant discrimination against the farm sector. I do not think farmers can feel that they are being compensated by a government which says: `We are going to increase funding for research, but in the meantime we will take it all out of your pocket before you get the chance to use it'. Mr Andrew —It is not compensation. Mr HAWKER —That is right, it is not compensation. Is this Government really serious when it says that it cares about rural Australia? Is the Prime Minister serious when he does his flippant jaunt around to a few farmers and says a few nice motherhood words-`I am concerned; I will do this and I will do that'? Mr Cobb —He does it in secret. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The honourable member will ignore interjections, which incidentally are out of order. He will address the Chair. Mr HAWKER —It sounds as though the interjection may have been something about doing it in secret. It is rather hard to swallow the attitude of this Government when one looks at its actions-or inaction might be a better word-when one looks at fuel prices. We have seen a lot of hot air and puffing and panting. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) tried to imply that he did not know he would get caught when world oil prices dropped. When we see that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) suggested in July last year that oil prices were likely to drop I do not think the Treasurer can hide behind any excuse about budgetary problems that may be created by falling oil prices. In summing up, I point out to honourable members that while we welcome moves in research in all the Bills before the House, and I think they will make a positive contribution in the long run, we should not ignore the plight facing rural producers in Australia. I should like to quote from the Quarterly Review of theRural Economy, of February 1986, put out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In its overview, the Bureau says-I hope that all honourable members will listen closely to this: In contrast to the improving performance of the non-farm sector of the Australian economy, the rural sector is experiencing declining incomes and several rural industries are in a depressed state. The real net value of rural production, a key economic indicator of farm sector performance, will decline in 1985-86 to the second lowest level on record. That is the stark reality. That is the reason why farmers are getting so angry. That is why they are continuing to come back to Parliament House en masse to try to get the message through to this Government. I hope that the Government, in particular the Minister for Primary Industry, will take on board this point, because it is extremely important that we address the more pressing problems now as well as going on to improve the research for our great primary industries. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(12.26) —I join in this obviously very wide-ranging debate, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing it to be so, because whilst these Bills are essentially of a technical nature dealing with various amendments to legislation concerning research, I think that this is an opportune moment to highlight some of the areas of concern within the rural sector. I start with an important point which is often overlooked, although I am sure that most Opposition members acknowledge it. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has drawn my attention to the fact-a fairly obvious fact, I suppose-that 1985 was the year of highest agricultural output in world history. I suppose that that is not really surprising given the changes that have occurred in farming techniques and approaches to technology over the years. I have said in this House before that for years we have talked about the green revolution in agriculture, and we are certainly seeing its effects in agriculture around the world. Much of this has been brought about by research in agriculture in Australia and other parts of the world, although I think we must acknowledge, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) commented, that we are dealing with a very efficient farming operation in Australia compared to those in other parts of the world. Interestingly, the honourable member for Gwydir talked about some of the problems that we are having in regard to world markets. He particularly commented on the problems that Australian agriculture was facing as a result of the proposed farm Bill in the United States of America and of the corrupt practices that have occurred because of the European Economic Community. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) drew the attention of the House to an interesting article in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 12 February-an article that was drawn up for the attention of students of economics. It was talking about the fact that world agricultural production is increasing, and it made this important point: American grain output also has a very important effect on world supply and demand, and like their European counterparts, US farmers enjoy all sorts of government assistance. The article continued with this interesting point: The most ludicrous example of such assistance was the fact that for decades thousands of American high schools in the mid-west wheat belt were paid not to grow wheat on their playgrounds. I guess that that is symptomatic of the problems that we are facing in world agriculture, problems of huge output and huge supply, but that supply not being matched by commensurate world demand. I congratulate the Opposition on its support for these essentially technical, machinery Bills. They will have an important effect on research in agriculture, for, despite the problems of the increasing world output in various areas of agriculture, we still need to ensure that we continue to enjoy the kind of reputation that we in Australia have enjoyed as being technically efficient farmers. The Bills also, to some extent, highlight the fact that some of the hallmarks of the Government's approach to agriculture, particularly in the area of research, revolve around two important factors. We have seen evidence of that in Bills introduced by this Government over the last couple of years. One of them is flexibility-flexibility to be able to deal with the very changing and difficult times in which we live. The second, and related to that, is the commercial reality of this world. Whilst it is all very well and very true to say that we have in Australia some of the most efficient farmers in the world-there is no question about that-there has to be a limit to the amount that can be produced without its having some great impact upon farm incomes, not only in Australia but throughout the world. This, of course, is the reason why the European Economic Community and the United States have engaged in some of the practices about which we are not particularly happy. In the context of some of the remarks today of the honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), my attention was also drawn to the fact that in 1969 the former Leader of the National Party of Australia-the Country Party of Australia as it then was-had some interesting comments to make. In an article in the Australian Financial Review of 27 June 1969, Mr Anthony said: It is a most disturbing fact that perhaps a third of the farms which are part of the Australian scene are producing an inadequate income for their families to live on. He talked about the difficulties and the humane considerations involved in trying to help those people. He went on to say: I am afraid the only possible answer for many of these people is that they should engage in some other employment, leaving a smaller number of people to work bigger and more economic farm units. That comment was picked up by newspapers and commentators at the time and it was suggested that Mr Anthony was essentially saying: `Get big or get out'. The current circumstances, in which there is a severe downturn in incomes in many sectors of agriculture in Australia, where people are facing all sorts of income difficulties, are certainly not new, and they tend to be somewhat cyclical. But I do not think that we are saying what Mr Anthony said back in 1969-that this is the approach which should be adopted. The other important point that should be borne in mind in relation to the comments of the honourable member for Wannon and the honourable member for Gwydir is that they were focusing upon the question of cost increases that Australian agriculture is facing. We are talking about average farm cost increases of about 7 per cent during this financial year, compared to about 12 per cent characterised during the period of the Fraser Government. The other important point arising in connection with the remarks of the honourable member for Gwydir was the continual attack that seems to be the focus of attention by conservative parties in Australia-that all the problems of the world and of the Australian Government can be solved overnight by looking at the areas that he nominated, namely, social welfare, health and public debt. I focus upon those for just a couple of moments. When the honourable member for Gwydir is advocating huge cuts in social welfare, is he suggesting that the Government should cut pensions? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member is now stretching relevance. I ask him to address himself more directly to the Bills before the House. Mr SIMMONS —I appreciate and accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the point I was trying to make is that often such broad comments are made widely without any attempt to nominate exactly how proposals will be implemented. The important point about all of the Bills before the House is that essentially they are reacting to the Government's belief that there should be a much more flexible approach concerning agriculture and agricultural research, and, as I said, in regard to accepting some of the commercial realities. When the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) introduced these Bills last week, in his comments on the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill he made the point: This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. I welcome those comments because the Bill will perhaps obviate the need for Opposition members, as they do from time to time, to make these broad sweeping statements about the problems of agriculture. We should not forget that in Australia we have been governed by conservative governments for most of the last 30-plus years. As many commentators have pointed out, many of the difficulties in agriculture have not just surfaced because there has been a Labor government. This selective indignation by members of the Opposition and by some of the agro politicians is sometimes more politically directed than looking at some of the realities of agriculture at present. I thank the House for the opportunity to comment on these Bills. Once again I congratulate the Opposition for its support of the Bills. I believe, as the Minister said, that these Bills will allow the Government a lot more flexibility to deal with some of the problems of research in agriculture and in that context be able to deal with some of those problems in the increasingly changing commercial world in which we live. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.26) —I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House on these primary industry Bills which are being debated cognately by the House. I am pleased to be here in 1986, which is the jubilee 150th year for South Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are concerned about the relevance of that remark, I hasten to point out, as I am sure you would want me to, that in what is a relatively brief period agriculture has made enormous advances in Australia. In a nation that is barely two centuries old we have managed, not only to maintain a democracy-which is a precious and all too rare gift on this globe-but also to rise from a dependent country to a country which is not only able to feed and clothe itself but which is also to be export oriented. Australia is export oriented, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said, to the point of over 40 per cent of our agricultural produce. It can reasonably be argued that agricultural produce and research into better agricultural productivity are not only essential for Australia but essential for our exporters because agricultural produce represents the export of what is a renewable resource as opposed to the export of many other products. These Bills deal with the question of how we are going to fund agricultural research. It might reasonably be asked just why the Commonwealth ought to be involved in funding agricultural research at all. I make the point that Australian agriculture is made up of a number of small independent businesses. Australian agriculture is made up of 176,000 commercial holdings. Surprisingly, 80,000 holdings which are listed as non-commercial holdings are supposedly held by people who are hobby farmers or who have an interest in farming not directly related to farm production. A minimal number of these 176,000 commercial holdings have the resources to be involved in or to conduct their own agricultural research. It makes a great deal of sense to bring into the House Bills that allow the people who are productive on these holdings to contribute mutually to some sort of research and to have that mutual contribution balanced by additional contributions from tax revenue. Why from tax revenue? Because, as the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has emphasised, there are tangible community benefits from agricultural research. Among those tangible community benefits are benefits in the area of human health and the area of environmental protection which, in fact, assist every Australian. I refer to a table in appendix 7, page 55, of a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources where it is indicated that there is a positive rate of return to the taxpayers' and the community's advantage from agricultural research. The table is too bulky to incorporate in Hansard but I recommend it to readers who may care to refer to it. One will see that the rate of return on all but one item of agricultural research has been positive no matter where around the world that agricultural research has taken place. I take up an interjection made during the speech by the honourable member for Wannon which suggested that some of the agricultural research could be interpreted as a form of compensation. I want to say on behalf of the farmers in my electorate and, I believe, on behalf of the farmers of the nation that their capacity and willingness to contribute to agricultural research are in no way taken or anticipated as a form of compensation for the burdens that the farmers currently carry on behalf of the rest of the community. In fact, funding of agricultural research is a positive investment by the society in a better future. It represents no form of compensation at all. I add too that much of the research that has been so beneficial to Australian agriculture has taken place on-farm. It is research that has emerged as a result of a farmer's initiative, research that has appeared as a result of a farmer's enterprise and as a result of his observations. A farmer may have seen that a particular variety has performed better than another in drought conditions. He may have observed that a particular fruit always seemed to be firmer and to arrive in better shape in the market-place. Everyone knows that the best of our wool breeding techniques have resulted from observations by the wool breeding generations of Australians who have made the wool industry great. Much of the research is as a result of perceptive farmers having seen a particular direction that they believe would benefit not only themselves but also their industry and the entire community. When discussing agricultural research it is fundamental to bear in mind that the Bills we are discussing in this House are not about increasing production but increasing the production per unit of input. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, without in any way wishing to show any disrespect to your earlier ruling, I must make reference to plant variety rights because plant variety rights were taken up by the honourable member for Wannon. Plant variety rights are one unique technique- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member has taken pains to indicate that he is now addressing the question of relevance on which the Chair made a ruling. The Chair cannot accept that he can do that with impunity. The honourable member will address himself specifically to the Bills. Mr ANDREW —I respect your ruling, as always, Mr Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to indicate that what is absolutely essential in all areas of agricultural research is that we ensure that whatever research we are undertaking does not simply increase production but ensures that the production per unit of input is increased. There are some areas of research that particularly lend themselves to investigation because they allow production to increase without the capital investment or without there being additional input. It was in that context that I referred to the area, as you are aware, of plant variety rights. It is so easy to achieve additional agricultural production by merely adding fertiliser or by merely adding water. In fact, it is easy enough to achieve additional agricultural production by the application of chemicals. We have all achieved that by showing a little expensive, tender loving care, but this all involves additional input. There are some areas of research that lend themselves to and are crying out for attention because production can increase without there being an increase in the input. It is these areas that all of the industry Bills currently before the House ought to refer to and agriculture ought to be addressing itself to as it endeavours to be more productive and efficient in the Australian scene. Australian agriculture has survived both production increases and cost reductions by a number of techniques that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would be familiar with. Many of these techniques, such as bulk production, minimum tillage, the use of weedicides and even redesigned yards for stock handling, have been a result of the initiative of farmers on-farm. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —In view of yesterday's announcement by the Westpac Banking Corporation that it will increase its interest rates on a wide range of loans including Bankcard, Mastercard, personal loans and small business overdrafts, does the Prime Minister still stand by the prediction he made on 24 January this year that the conditions for a downward movement in interest rates had emerged? If so, when will we see some evidence of that? Mr HAWKE —It is important to put this question in its appropriate perspective. It should be understood that monetary policy, as far as we are concerned, is an indispensable part of our overall economic strategy which has been successfully designed to secure sustained growth in output and employment without, at the same time, debilitating inflation or balance of payments difficulties. I want to make it quite clear that monetary policy will remain at its present settings for as long as is necessary. Of course, we all want lower interest rates, it is common ground. But we want permanently lower interest rates. We have set policy in a way which is designed to achieve permanently lower interest rates over time as economic conditions permit. I am not about to risk the achievement of lower interest rates by speculating in any detail, either in answer to the Leader of the Opposition or on any other pretext, on the outlook for interest rates. Mr SIMMONS —The Minister for Defence will be aware that a number of sites are being canvassed publicly for the Army's training facilities apart from those under study in New South Wales. Can the Minister inform the House of the enormous transport costs involved in conducting Army exercises at great distances from home bases such as would be involved if some of the proposals now being canvassed were adopted? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question because it goes to the heart of one of the reasons why we sent details of the two areas concerned for an environmental impact statement to sort out those problems before a decision was made. One of the reasons why we are interested in securing an area in New South Wales is the problems to which the honourable gentleman alluded in his question. Figures, supplied to me show that transport costs would completely overwhelm other exercise costs at some of the locations being proposed as exercise areas. Take for example, a standard infantry battalion group based at Holsworthy. The costs of operating this unit to and from Cobar, a proposed manoeuvre area on which we are now conducting an environmental impact study, would be $480,000 out of the total cost for a 14-day exercise of about $900,000. Transport to the exercise area would account for slightly more than half of the total exercise costs. By comparison, transport costs for an exercise at Shoalwater Bay near Rockhampton would amount to more than $780,000, or $300,000 more than at Cobar. For an exercise in the Pilbara, transport costs would blow out to over $4.1m, which is 10 times the cost of the exercise itself. Over an annual exercise program for the 1st Brigade of nine-unit level exercises and one brigade exercise, the additional costs of exercising at Shoalwater Bay rather than Cobar would be $8.5m. To exercise at Yampi in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where we have exercise facilities, would cost an extra $45m. Of course, these costs do not mean that no exercises should be conducted in those areas. On the contrary, they should be but it gives pause for thought if the view is put forward that exercises should be conducted only in those areas. That would become enormously expensive. To shift the units requiring exercises closer to those locations as an alternative to that strategy would involve the Commonwealth in quite massive outlays in shifting the facilities. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government's trilogy commitment requires that the deficit for 1986-87 not increase either as a proportion of gross domestic product or in nominal terms. If not, will the Prime Minister explain precisely what constraint the trilogy places on the size of the Budget deficit in 1986-87? Mr HAWKE —The concept of the trilogy has been explained on a number of occasions. The conditions laid down by us, conditions which the Leader of the Opposition said could not possibly be achieved last year-and they were-requires that the deficit not increase as a proportion of gross domestic product. Honourable members will find, when the Budget is brought down, that those conditions will be abided by. We will continue what we have done in the period we have been in office. I remind the House and the nation what that very considerable achievement is. We had in prospect a deficit which, as a proportion of GDP, was 5 per cent, representing the massive blowout of the deficit under the stewardship of this individual who is now the Leader of the Opposition. Under the very sound economic policies of this Government, particularly under the stewardship of my colleague the Treasurer, that massive blowout resulting from the Opposition's irresponsibility has been brought down from 5 per cent of GDP to 2.1 per cent in 1985-86, and it will be further brought down in 1986-87. Mr BLANCHARD —I take this opportunity of joining parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your elevation to your high office. Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of recent Press reports that the Northern Territory Administration is seeking to take a position on the Board of Management of Uluru National Park? Does this not contrast with statements made by Mr Tuxworth during his $300,000 media campaign against the recognition of Aboriginal ownership of Uluru National Park? Mr HOLDING —Yes, I have seen a recent communication which was directed to my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in which Mr Tuxworth, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, canvassed the option of taking up the position which was made available to the Northern Territory Government on the Board of Management of Uluru. As honourable members will be aware, it is perfectly true that Mr Tuxworth expended taxpayers' money-over $300,000-in a publicity campaign involving several elements. The first element was that under no circumstances would the Northern Territory Government ever take a place on the Board of Management despite an invitation from traditional owners inviting the Northern Territory Government to maintain conservation employees to carry out duties as rangers. They were withdrawn at the instance of the Northern Territory Government and the result of the campaign conducted by Mr Tuxworth was unfortunately to incite high levels of racism on this issue in the Northern Territory. That is a matter to be regretted by all honourable members. I would like to use this occasion to congratulate the honourable member for the Northern Territory who has recently made a great contribution to the whole issue of race relations in the Northern Territory by moving to Queensland. I will quote not the views of any spokesman from this side of the House but the attitude of a newspaper which is not sympathetic to this Government, on the backing and filling of the Northern Territory administration on this issue. I quote from an editorial in the Northern Territory News and what it says in terms of this whole program and waste of money. It states: The whole thing is a farce from beginning to end. It started with some very clear differences between Mr Tuxworth and his Conservation Minister, Mr Steve Hatton, on the granting of title of Uluru to the Aborigines. Mr Tuxworth wanted to give them living areas only but he didn't bother to tell Mr Hatton, who not unreasonably, thought that the old Everingham policy of Territory title-as against Commonwealth title-still stood. The cost of this confusion and misrepresentation to the Australian taxpayer was over $300,000. It seemed that the Territory Government had caught the disease that has infested their Federal coalition colleagues. The Northern Territory News summed it up perfectly when it stated: No-one knows precisely what the Government's policy is on a determined issue . . . from one day to the next. That is the position that has emerged in the Territory. That is the position on this issue which has also clearly emerged on the part of the coalition. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I remind him of his commitment in his taxation statement of 19 September 1985 that none of the tax cuts will be financed by adding to the Government's deficit. Does he still stand by his commitment not to increase the deficit in either of the next two years? Mr KEATING —The Government's trilogy commitment is quite clear. The Prime Minister enunciated it again this day. The commitment which the Government has given was that the deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product would not rise but that in 1985-86 we would reduce it in nominal terms, which of course we did. I add that we did it at a level which was at least $500m to $600m below the market expectation. But even as a proportion of GDP last year-I refer to the 1985-86 deficit-from memory we could have brought in a money deficit which was even higher than the previous year. We brought in a deficit of nothing like $7 billion-plus but $4.9 billion. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I ask whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Newcastle Herald of 31 January this year which reproduces a letter from a Dr Philip Furey of 10 Watt Street, Newcastle to citizens of the region promoting what he called a full physical examination and stress test at no charge to the patient in order that he could increase the cash flow of his practice during the slack end-of-the-year period. Would such an arrangement depend on Dr Furey's being prepared to accept only the Medicare rebate with no extra charge to the patient? Is this the same Dr Furey who by letter dated 14 November 1983 advised his pensioner patients that he would no longer bulk bill any patient and that from 1 February 1984 his pensioner patients would be required to pay cash at such a level that they would be out of pocket to the extent of $2 for every consultation? Does Dr Furey's Christmas period exercise represent a dishonourable rip-off of Medicare and the taxpayer in order to maintain his cash flow? Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the past it has been ruled by your predecessors that, where an individual's case is concerned and his name referred to in a question without notice, the matter should be referred to as a question on notice. I suggest in these circumstances that the rule should be applied. Madam SPEAKER —No. I call the Minister for Health. Dr BLEWETT —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the report. As the honourable member points out, the doctor's statement as quoted does suggest that he was prepared to accept the Medicare rebate as total payment for these patient services. I must say that this is quite a turnabout for Dr Furey who advised his pensioner patients in November 1984 that he would no longer bulk bill them and would require each of them to meet additional out of pocket costs. Apparently two years' experience of the excellent services of Medicare has led him to change his mind. I point out to the people of Australia that a Medicare benefit is not payable for screening services. That decision was not made by this Government. It was a decision made by the previous Government in relation to screening services. Such services can be provided only when they are reasonably required for the management of the medical condition of a patient. To be fair to Dr Furey, I understand that he has contacted the Health Insurance Commission in an attempt to put the letter that was published in the New- castle Herald in its true perspective. He maintains that the letter was sent to only those patients who were under regular monitoring for a heart condition and that the letter was additional to the ordinary recall notice that he usually sends out. I wish to put that statement of his on record. However, regardless of that explanation, the Health Insurance Commission is aware of the published letter and will fulfil its obligations, that is, to identify possible health screenings and the monitoring of unusual patterns of services which may lead to undue demands on the Medicare budget. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will he advise the House whether the figure assessed by economists as the correct price reduction per litre on fuel in Australia, taking into account the import parity pricing formula and the fall in the price of Middle East light crude from $US30 a barrel to $US15 a barrel, would mean a price reduction of 11c a litre, or is there some other figure that he can produce for us? Mr BARRY JONES —As the Leader of the National Party should know because I am sure his memory stretches back to the time when he was in cabinet, this is a matter still being determined by the Cabinet. Mr Sinclair —I asked about the formula. Mr BARRY JONES —The formula is one of those factors being examined by the Cabinet committee. The Cabinet committee will then make a recommendation to the full Cabinet. The basis on which a decision is made will be announced at the time. It is the prerogative of the Government to do that and it will announce the basis at the appropriate time. Mr Howard —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the question before last was asked, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) took a point of order because the question appeared to reflect upon the character of an individual and therefore would fall fairly squarely within standing order 153. Without giving any indication as to your adjudication on that point of order, which appeared to many on this side to have been properly made, you simply invited the Minister for Health to proceed. Does this mean that in future, when points of order are raised by the Opposition, we will not be given the courtesy of an adjudication by you, particularly on points of order that are properly based and relate to matters that fall very squarely within the Standing Orders. Mr Young —On the point of order, Madam Speaker: Standing order 144 makes it clear that questions should not contain statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated. There was no challenge to that from the Opposition. Mr Howard —Further on the point of order, Madam Speaker: The person asking the question reflected upon the conduct and character of the person named in the question and in those circumstances it was entirely proper for the right honourable Leader of the National Party to raise the point of order that he did. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the House that in calling the Minister for Health I obviously dismissed the point of order. I further point out to the House that if I were to apply standing order 144 directly to every question asked during Question Time I doubt whether any one question would be in order. Mr FREE —Has the Minister for Aviation seen claims in this morning's Press that the cost of acquiring land for Sydney's second airport will be $75m and not the $31.5m estimated by the Government? Are these claims accurate? Mr PETER MORRIS —I have seen those reports. They have originated from some of the residents of the Badgerys Creek area, who claim that the valuation figures used by the Government are wrong. The advice provided to me and to the Department has come from government valuers. It has recently been checked-only a matter of weeks ago. It is accurate and it is based on existing land use. I think some of the people claiming higher values would like to receive a higher value if the land could be put to some other use. That is not the case. The valuations are accurate and are based on existing land use, and they are provided on the best advice available to government by government valuers. Residents in the area have already made numerous phone calls to the Department seeking appointments to discuss the sale of property. We will be moving as quickly as possible to conclude suitable negotiated arrangements with the vendors of that property and to negotiate arrangements so that people can under agreed terms continue the activities they currently carry on until such time as the land is actually required for construction. Mr HUNT —In view of the acceptance by the Minister for Primary Industry that the farm downturn is no longer cyclical but has now become a structural crisis, does he accept that the quarantining of farm losses is one of the main reasons why rural land values have recently dropped, in many cases by 30 per cent or more? Does the Minister accept that this discriminatory quarantining rule is undermining confidence in the farm sector and is an impediment to the proper processes of rural adjustment? Mr KERIN —Technically, any question on quarantining should go to the Treasurer, but I will comment on the matters raised by the honourable member in respect of land values. Land values have gone up and down in the rural sector from time immemorial. If we look at the New South Wales Valuer-General's report, which gives us an accurate assessment over the years, that has always been the case. Even through calendar year 1985 land values went up quite dramatically in some areas and down dramatically in others. For quite a period land values in the marginal wheat belt of Western Australia have been going down, while land values in another part of Australia, in the dairying area of Malanda on the Atherton Tablelands, according to a report I saw recently have gone up by 400 per cent. So land values going up and down in the rural sector is nothing uncommon. A more accurate analysis of what is happening in land values goes back to longer term trends. As a commentator recently pointed out, there is a problem in coping with the more disinflationary environment we have today which is due in large part to the success of the Government's policies. It is remarkable that at the time of the first two oil shocks, in 1974 and 1979-80, we had very high agricultural commodity prices and land prices soared dramatically. A common thread runs through all the rural industries that are in trouble and are experiencing high levels of debt. The time when commodity prices were high, in the late 1970s and the 1980s, was a time when land prices were soaring in response to high inflation. That is when debt levels were mounting. That occurred because it was sensible for people to buy land and capital equipment and pay it back with inflated dollars. The only real losers at that time were the lenders. Farmers were receiving a satisfactory rate of return on capital. They were depending on rising commodity prices and the tax free capital appreciation of land. That is why they were receiving such a satisfactory return on capital. It is difficult to be critical of those people but they are the ones who are caught. As I keep on saying, if we look at the structure of debt, a large component of the rural sector still has very low levels of debt, but right across the board about 12 per cent have debts of over $150,000. It is nonsense to attribute any change in land values to the quarantining provision. The relevant Bill is not even in the House; it will not come into force until 1 July 1986, although I would have to check with the Treasurer on that. We also in that debate will need to look at the motivation for putting such legislation in place. We had highly contrived tax schemes whereby people could transform income into capital gains by indulging in rather speculative or tax avoiding activities. People were coming into agriculture, highly gearing their investment because they got full interest rate deductions, and then after a while, having inflated the land values of genuine farmers, selling off those properties for immense capital gains and continuing the process. We cannot have a successful agricultural sector mounted on the basis of contrived tax avoidance schemes. That was the motivation. I am not saying that there are no problems with quarantining, but in regard to the full time and near full time farmers-I will not use the word `genuine'-as far as I can work out the quarantine provision may affect 2 or 3 per cent of those farmers, if any at all. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to reports of widespread disruption in the building industry in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Can the Minister inform the House as to the current state of industrial relations in the industry, what has caused the disruption, and what is the Government's attitude to it? Mr WILLIS —A serious situation does exist in the building industry. Widespread industrial action has been instigated by the Builders Labourers Federation in all States, particularly in Victoria, although it affects all States. Employer retaliation to that widespread industrial action has been to stand down or dismiss thousands of BLF members. In fact, my latest information is that up to last night up to 3,000 builders labourers had been sacked in Victoria. In New South Wales an ultimatum has been given to the builders labourers to break bans affecting 40 sites or face similar action. In the Australian Capital Territory employers today began sacking builders labourers for failing to lift bans on a number of sites and about 400 had been given dismissal notices by the middle of today. That is supplemented by the fact that some 300 builders labourers have been stood down in South Australia for action that is being taken there and there has also been some action in Western Australia. The reason for this situation is primarily that the Builders Labourers Federation is seeking to achieve the 3.8 per cent national wage increase-the previous national wage increase-which it still has not been awarded by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, its application to receive the national wage increase was rejected by the Commission because the Builders Labourers Federation failed to give the no extra claim commitment required from all unions if they are to receive national wage increases. Having been rejected by the Commission, the Builders Labourers Federation has sought to achieve that national wage increase by applying direct pressure on the employers, imposing various bans which have included the breaking of a number of concrete pours. The employers find themselves in a situation where they are now part of a code of conduct which has been required by this Government and also the Victorian and New South Wales governments. That code of conduct requires the building employers to adhere to awards and industry agreements. That means that they do not pass on national wage increase if they are not part of the award. The employers have strongly resisted the action taken by the Builders Labourers Federation, hence the stand-downs and dismissals which I have referred to. In South Australia the action is not about the national wage increase but about a claim for steel scaffolders, steel fixers and in Western Australia- Mr Sinclair —Boring, boring. Mr WILLIS —Madam Speaker, I think it speaks volumes for the state of the Opposition when its members say that matters such as this are boring. The Government's attitude to this situation is that the BLF is to blame for the plight of its members. It refuses to accept its obligations under the arbitration system and especially to abide by the national wage principles, yet it seeks to get the national wage increases. It is leading its members along a path which is disastrous for the union and for the individual members-a path which was entirely avoidable if more sensible policies had been applied by the union leadership. I am sure that many members of the BLF would wish that different policies applied and that they could work normally. I am pleased that members of other building unions are working normally, and are doing work which would not normally be part of their duties, to enable them to maintain their jobs. They have been authorised to do that in a situation such as this by a decision of the ACTU Executive last November. Tradesmen building workers are certainly entitled to do whatever work is necessary to maintain their jobs. Finally, what is taking place at present is an absolute vindication of the Government's policy towards this union. The Government has taken the approach that this union has gone so far and it has been given every opportunity to demonstrate its good faith, that it has demonstrated its lack of concern to do that and, therefore, it should be faced with deregistration or its effective equivalent. The process towards achieving that is continuing. The case before the Commission will finish next month. The action of the BLF at present completely confirms the Government's approach to that union. Mr SPENDER —Will the Attorney-General assure the House that the Government will not appoint to the position of Ombudsman a Commonwealth employee? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I remind the honourable gentleman that that appointment is not within my province. It is a matter for the Prime Minister. Mrs KELLY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. In light of the brutal bashings of a Canberra family last week, will the Attorney-General implement legislation in the Australian Capital Territory to protect innocent victims of domestic violence? Will he also tell the House what progress has been made in introducing legislation under the Commonwealth Family Law Act to protect all domestic violence victims? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think everybody would be very concerned at the tragedy that occurred in Canberra last week which relates to what is called domestic violence. Violence in all its forms, apprehended, domestic or otherwise, is a matter of serious concern to the law, and certainly to the community, because life and limb are involved. I invite the honourable member to look at the letter in the Canberra Times this morning which was written by the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which deals with this matter and makes the point that the matter has been the subject of reference to the Law Reform Commission for a relatively short period. I think the reference was made in late 1984, a report which was prepared in 1985 has been circulated, and I understand that the Commission is about to bring down a final report. I also understand that-of course, it will be a matter for further comment when the report is received-for the first time perhaps emphasis is now being placed not so much on the effectiveness of a court order as on other provisions, which might be deemed ancillary provisions, which might lessen the anger or the sense of violence that is involved by way of threats. In the unfortunate case that the honourable member referred to it is acknowledged that it does not really help to have a process whereby a summons is issued, as people can become even more agitated at receiving a summons than they do at having a sanction or an injunction placed on them so that they are not able to visit premises. There was an allegation-I understand that it could be a fair one-that the mere process of issuing a summons might encourage more violence and that it might have contributed to the recent tragedy. Of course, in the family law area there is the added advantage of having an injunctive mechanism added to a Family Court order. That is the important part. If we look at section 199 of the ordinance in Canberra we will see that there is also an opportunity to proceed by way of warrant, with the disadvantage of a person not being able to get an injunction. These are technical matters but they relate to the fact that where a person fears violence it is important that some immediate sanctuary be given by way of something other than just a court order whereby somebody is asked to appear to answer a charge. I am hopeful that the provisions of the Law Reform Commission will enable another type of order to be made. I am also well aware of the fact that obviously when apprehended violence is involved there is a necessity for a very speedy mechanism for getting an injunction at the same time as the issue of the summons. I hope that the matter can be resolved in legal terms but, from the point of view of the community, it is very important that we try to get a provision whereby these matters can be resolved without exacerbating the tension that already exists. Mrs SULLIVAN —My question, which is also addressed to the Attorney-General, refers to the fact that only two women were appointed by the Government to its Constitution Consultative Committee out of a total membership of 39. How many women were on the list of suggested appointees submitted to him for his and Cabinet's consideration? How many were actually invited to be members of the Consultative Committee? When only two of those invited agreed to serve on the Committee, why were additional men invited to make up the numbers when it is clear that there are literally dozens of Australian women as qualified to serve on the Committee as most of the men who were subsequently appointed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am aware of the accusation by Senator Peter Baume that he felt that there had been some discrimination against women. That assumed, of course, that only two women had been asked to join the Committee. I assure him that at least eight or nine were asked and, for reasons related to their obligations, they declined. I think that it is understandable, because a number of women in Australia are holding very senior and important positions, as the honourable member would know, that they felt they could not afford to leave those positions to take up the obligations of membership of the Committee. So it is unfair to suggest that the Committee is in any way biased or unbalanced in what it is about. It is important, as the honourable member would know, in constitutional reform to have on a commission people who have a constituency, whether it be in politics, administration, human rights or the ability to communicate. All those areas were explored from the point of view of getting adequate representation from women. Many of them felt that they did not have the time to participate to the extent required. Certainly two accepted the invitation. The committees act in an advisory capacity to a central commission of six, of which one is a woman. It is clear that the advisory committees are flexible. I assure the honourable member for Moncrieff that the committees themselves will be entitled, and in fact encouraged, to invite more women to participate in committee deliberations. Mr GEAR —Is the Minister for Health aware of reported claims by the Opposition spokesman on health that public hospitals are being strangled by a lack of Commonwealth Government funds and increasing bureaucratic controls? Is he further aware of the reported claims by the National President of the Australian Hospitals Association, Dr Barry Catchlove, that Labor governments are actively participating in the reduction of public hospitals to second class status? Will the Minister advise the House of the true situation in relation to Federal Government funding of the public hospital system? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the comments made by both the shadow Minister for Health and Dr Catchlove, and I shall deal with each statement in turn. With reference to the statements of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker, I remain constantly amazed at his sheer ignorance about the facts about health issues in this country. Mr Carlton —Deal with the comments of Dr Catchlove. Dr BLEWETT —I pointed out to the House that I would deal with that matter in a moment, and if the honourable member will contain himself I will come to the points made by Dr Catchlove. But to return to our friend the honourable member for Barker, I suppose it is not particularly surprising that he should make statements of this nature because in the period of more than 12 months that he has been shadow Health Minister, we have had not one constructive suggestion about health policies. Mr Porter —The Minister has 100,000 people waiting for beds. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —Madam Speaker, I think perhaps I should remind the noisy and negative member for Barker- Madam SPEAKER —I suggest you get on with the answer to the question. Mr Porter —Come on! Try playing the ball. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Barker that if he continues to interject I will name him. Dr BLEWETT —Referring to the point made by the honourable member for Barker in his statement the other day, he seems to ignore entirely that there is a very clear distinction between the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth is responsible for the funding of the public hospital systems and the States are responsible for the administration. Our primary responsibility is in relation to funding and to achieving certain objectives such as universal access to the systems, but the detailed administration and running of the public hospital systems are State responsibilities. It is important that the honourable member for Barker get that clear. When we turn to funding, about which the honourable member was talking, total Federal Government payments to the States and the Northern Territory for specific health related grants have increased from $1,203m in the last year of the Fraser Government-that is, 1982-83, and the honourable member can check these figures-to $2,426m in 1985-86, an increase of 100 per cent. Yet he has the hide to run around on public platforms talking about a stranglehold on finance by the Federal Government. For the most populous States, New South Wales and Victoria, Federal health grants have also more than doubled since the Fraser Budgets. One should look at those specific grants before one makes the kinds of statements made by the honourable member. Mr Porter —I raise a point of order as to the relevance of the answer. The question related to hospital funding. The Minister's answer relates to total health grants. Madam SPEAKER —I do not accept the point of order. The Minister is answering the question, and that is about all you can ask for. Dr BLEWETT —As the honourable member should know, the great bulk of those grants go to the hospital systems of the States. Now let me turn to Dr Catchlove's remarks. If the honourable member for Barker had bothered to read what Dr Catchlove had talked about, he would realise that Dr Catchlove talked about global budgeting, which is a decision of the State governments in relation to their hospitals. He talked about the accountability of the public hospital systems to the State governments. He talked about industrial relations, which is an issue for State governments. He talked about non-professional services in the public hospital system-a State government issue. He talked about roles of boards of management-again a State government issue. He talked about capital equipment and projects, predominantly a State government issue. The issue which the honourable member for Barker tried to hang his comments on, the statement by Dr Catchlove, referred almost entirely to the administration and running of State hospital systems. It is true that two issues raised by Dr Catchlove have Federal implications. They relate to whether the treatment of outpatients should be on Medicare and whether patient billing in the public hospitals should be at full cost. In both cases it is a question of transferring funding responsibility from the States to the Commonwealth. At the moment much of the funding for those activities is decided upon by the States. We would be perfectly prepared to enter into discussions in relation to those matters, if this would make our hospital systems more efficient, as long as it were understood that there would have to be some compensations on the State side. The proposal as it now stands from Dr Catchlove is simply to transfer a cost burden in those areas from the States to the Commonwealth Government. But we are certainly open to answering questions on those issues. Finally, I would ask the honourable member for Barker this: All of us on this side of the House, after 12 months, look forward not to the negative comments that have been made by the honourable member but to some kind of health policy from him. We wonder whether we are to get the same three-system policy as was proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar at the last election. It will be remembered that if the Liberals had been elected we were to have had a new health scheme in each year of the first three years. He was trying to outbid Fraser. Fraser produced five health schemes in seven years. The honourable member for Mackellar wanted to produce three schemes in three years. We want to know where the honourable member for Barker stands on some of these issues. Madam SPEAKER —I advise the House that as a result of a stop-work meeting held at 10 a.m. today catering staff have withdrawn their services until the resumption of normal business on Thursday, 20 February 1986. I have directed that advice be prepared for the President and me and we will have the Joint House Department issue a notice to all honourable members this afternoon. Mr Sinclair-Madam Speaker, on a point of procedure: In relation to the statement you have just made, could you make a statement in the House if any decision is taken by Mr President and you regarding the result of the dispute so that all honourable members will know what is happening? Madam SPEAKER —Certainly, as soon as that knowledge is available to me. Unfortunately, I did not get the notice early enough to have a statement prepared. As soon as one is ready, I will advise the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —I wish to speak on the points I raised during Question Time apropos the application of Standing Orders. The matter of questions without notice is set down, as you properly said, Madam Speaker, within our Standing Orders and I would like to direct your attention to both the introductions to standing order 144 and to standing order 153. Madam Speaker, if you care to turn to standing order 144, you will see that there is a general admonition. I would have presumed that other standing orders would take precedence over the application of such general admonition. I draw your attention particularly to the fact that the introduction to standing order 144 states: The following general rules shall apply to questions . . . You may recall, Madam Speaker, that it was under standing order 153 that I rose on a point of order relating to the question submitted to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in which a particular person was named and in which a number of inferences were made regarding that person's character. Standing order 153 states: Questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct . . . Madam Speaker, I have risen to ask your ruling on the extent to which, in future, as a result of the determination made by you during Question Time today, it is permissible for honourable members on either side of the House, providing the question falls within the general terms of standing order 144, to refer specifically to individuals by name and to make inferences regarding the conduct of those individuals, as was specifically done in the question asked of the Minister for Health. If that is to be so, I suggest that it is necessary for the matter to be referred to the Standing Orders Committee of this House to be examined, for it would seem that standing order 153 would be largely redundant in those circumstances. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —In relation to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I think there has been general agreement about the manner in which questions have been directed in this House for a long period. I do not think the right honourable member for New England is correct in his interpretation of the mixture of standing orders 144 and 153. As I said during Question Time, I maintain that in order to make the question intelligible it was necessary for the honourable member asking the question to include the name of the person. He was not reflecting on that person's conduct. It was a reference to the proper relationship between that person, involved as he is, a medico and the Australian Government, through Medicare. If the honourable member asking the question had left the name out of the question, obviously the Minister would have included the name in his answer to the question. The possible answer to the question can be the basis for judgment of whether standing orders 144 and 153 operate unfairly against any person who may be mentioned in it. I ask that you give consideration to those points, Madam Speaker, when you are considering this matter. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —I think I should mention that, other than within the generality of the Standing Orders, there is no discipline against a Minister referring to an individual by name. The Minister is expected to have in his knowledge information that might well relate to individuals. The prohibition in standing order 153 specifically refers to the question, not to the answer. The answer that can be given by a Minister is dealt with elsewhere in the Standing Orders and the restraints are slightly different. Therefore, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the point raised by the Leader of the House is not accurate. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —If the interpretation given to the Standing Orders by the right honourable member for New England and Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) were correct, standing order 144 would be completely inoperative. The fact that it is there and that it is sustained means that there are occasions when the inclusion of a name in a question is necessary. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I support the comments of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I refer you, Madam Speaker, to page 495 of House of Representatives Practice, which covers the identification of people in questions. The third paragraph is critical to the issue and supports the point of order of the right honourable member for New England. It states: Questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons cannot be asked without notice. Although this rule is generally applied to named persons, it has also been applied to unnamed, but readily identifiable, persons. Such questions may, however, be placed on the Notice Paper- That was the earlier point of order of the right honourable member for New England. The paragraph continues: The purpose of the rule is to protect the person against criticism which could be unwarranted. A question on notice does not receive the same publicity and prominence as a question without notice and the reply can be more considered. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether, in the ruling you gave, you said that the question asked by the honourable member for Charlton did not reflect on the character of the person named. Will the Standing Orders continue to be interpreted in accordance with standing order 153, as explained on page 495 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice which I have just read to the House? Madam SPEAKER —I have never known such interest before in the Standing Orders. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —Apart from any other considerations, to a very large extent the question which the House is considering in connection with this matter hinges on whether or not the question which I asked made unfavourable imputations against the character of the person who was named in the question. Let me make two points. First, it has been quite correctly pointed out that, had that person not been identified by name, not only would the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) not have been able to answer the question, but also it would have been necessary for him to refer to that person by name in order to give a sensible answer. The second point I make is this: The Opposition is now in the process of claiming that I made some unfavourable imputation against the person named. The simple fact is this: I quoted. First, I referred to a letter, and secondly, to an additional promotional document of some kind, both of which the doctor had issued. I simply referred to things which had occurred. If the Opposition assesses the nature of the material which I brought to the attention of this House as being an unfavourable imputation against the behaviour or the character of Dr Furey, that is for it to decide. Madam SPEAKER —I will now give a ruling on this matter, as that is what the Leader of the National Party of Australia has asked for. Upon hearing the question asked by the honourable member for Charlton, I did not consider that he was in any way inpugning the character of the person he named. He was speaking of a matter between Medicare and the doctor. When the Leader of the National party drew standing order 153 to my attention, I ruled on standing order 144 (a), which states that questions should not contain `statements of facts or names of person unless they are strictly necessary'. I think that in this case they were necessary. I say to the Leader of the National Party that this ruling does not mean that standing order 153 is out of order or cannot be used. One has, at times, to make judgments on whether a question needs to be ruled on according to one standing order or another. Often a question would be unintelligible if the Chair strictly applied a standing order. I suggest also that if honourable members want a complete, strict and inflexible imposition of Standing Orders, then so be it. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy and pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, I present the Australian Atomic Energy Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Also on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy and for the information of honourable members, I present an exchange of letters between the United Kingdom and Australian governments on the follow-up to the report of the Royal Commission into Nuclear Tests in Australia together with the terms of reference for the technical assessment group. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed. That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, I present the Australian War Memorial annual report for 1984-85. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs KELLY —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mrs KELLY —On page 733 of yesterday's Hansard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) attributed certain statements to me which are incorrect. He stated that I questioned the international economic priorities of the Government and in doing so made a deliberate attempt to make it difficult, `well nigh impossible, for the Government to honour the commitments that it has made on the subjects of oil pricing and taxation'. I made no such statement. In fact in this House I have totally supported the Government and its honouring of its commitments on these matters. Mr Howard —I am sorry. Mrs KELLY —Thank you. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr PORTER —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in responding to a question following a Press release and Press conference yesterday by Dr Barry Catchlove, President of the Australian Hospitals Association, said that I had misrepresented the situation. I think he said that I had been untruthful in suggesting that the Australian public hospital system was being strangled because of the lack of funds provided by the Commonwealth Government. He suggested that that was not the case. I have made that allegation; that is true. That allegation is supported on page 117 of the Commonwealth Budget, which clearly indicates that recurrent funding- Mr Young —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr PORTER —I know the Government is terrified; it knows that 100,000 people are waiting for hospital beds in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has raised a point of order. Mr Young —The honourable member is not making a personal explanation. First of all he said that he wanted to make a personal explanation. Then he said: `I have not been misrepresented. My point of view is backed up by statistics and some report'. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, my attention was drawn away. Will the honourable member for Barker explain to the House succinctly just how he has been personally misrepresented? He is well aware of the conditions of the indulgence. Mr PORTER —The Minister for Health suggested that I was wrong in saying that the Commonwealth is strangling the public hospital system. He suggested that the Commonwealth was providing more money to hospitals. By way of explaining my- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is entitled to say that the honourable member is wrong if he wants to. The honourable member must show how he misrepresented him. Mr PORTER —He misrepresented me by saying that I was wrong because I am correct. In order to show that I am correct I need to refer- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may not debate the issue. Mr PORTER —I do not wish to debate the issue. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He has made his personal explanation. Mr PORTER —Madam Speaker, if I am just to get up and say that the Minister is wrong and I am right- Madam SPEAKER —When the honourable member makes a personal explanation he is given that right by indulgence. He is perfectly clear on the Standing Orders, which state that he must then explain how he personally has been misrepresented. That means that he cannot debate the issue. He must refer to a statement in which he has been misrepresented by the Minister for Health. Mr PORTER —Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to do. The Minister has said that I have improperly, wrongly and untruthfully suggested that the Commonwealth has reduced funds to public hospitals. Unless I can refer to the Commonwealth document which substantiates my claims- Madam SPEAKER —You will have to be quick about it. Mr PORTER —I will indeed. The Commonwealth Government has increased recurrent funding to public hospitals by some $24m. That is an increase of some 2 per cent over the level of funding for last year. In other words, it is a real reduction of 6 per cent, and that is why enormous queues are building up for public hospitals in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will now resume his seat and take note that when he is making a personal explanation again he will do so without attempting to debate the issue. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully shows: As part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: Intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. Remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. Keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. 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 into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that the decision to place an Army Artillery Base in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee area and the manoeuvres area in the Cobar region, would cause undue hardship to the families affected. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Abandon its decision to resume land in the Orange/Bathurst/Mudgee and Cobar areas for military purposes. 2. That no site is chosen which includes productive, agricultural and/or pastoral land. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petitions of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That the Federal Government's report recommending aged pensioners pay for prescribed drugs be not acted upon. The aged are more likely to be using prescribed drugs than others and this outrageous suggestion will only deprive the aged pensioners of money they need for living expenses. Due to any increase in cost of prescribed drugs, pensioners may not be able to have prescriptions filled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no action be taken by the Government on this matter and that free drugs remain available to the aged. by Mr Halverson. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undesigned 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 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. 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 sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of there 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 Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This partition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards:- Inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-A) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, B) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitions as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Parkes in New South Wales 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 inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join and trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Parkes electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e. set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The increasing despair in rural industry, small business and the average Australian household resulting from the accelerating crisis in the Government's economic management, as demonstrated by yesterday's dramatic announcement on interest rates. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.07) —Yesterday's irrational emotional response by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has demonstrated only too effectively that the people of Australia will be the bunnies in what are the constraints of the Australian Labor Party in office. We all know that there are factions within the Labor Party, but the Labor Party in government is hostage to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We know that as hostage to the ACTU it has negotiated a prices and incomes accord, as a result of which we have a total dependence on monetary policy. I will come to what the Secretary to the Treasury has said about that. We know that within the constraints of monetary policy, the only way in which the dollar can be held firm is by constant and continuing intervention in the market-place and by a reaction in the borrowing availability of funds and the rate that has to be paid by average Australians. We know that behind all that are the big spending programs of Labor Ministers. Today we heard from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). He told us about Medicare but totally ignored the catastrophic conditions that exist in teaching hospitals in Sydney and Melbourne and the small bush hospitals around Australia and the degree to which standards of medical care are affected by the economic programs this Government is pursuing. I start by examining a situation where the ordinary Australian is being called on to pay the price for the policies this Government is now locked into. We know that there should be a drop of 11c a litre in fuel prices. This morning we learned, thanks to the Australian Financial Review, that the Treasurer is running around mooting a drop of 6.5c. In any and every direction, whether it be income tax cuts, fuel cuts, the capital gains tax, the quarantining of farm losses, the fringe benefits tax, the constraints on this Government are such that the only people who will be called upon to pay the price are the ordinary Australians. I know that all honourable members remember only too well the 100,000 farmers in all who in the middle of last year demonstrated their concern about the state of their industry. We all remember that on Friday of last week another 5,000 were on the lawns of Parliament House-not just for their own good, but because they hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) might come out and address them, or that the Treasurer or the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) might address them. What happened? We had from the Prime Minister rhetoric to the effect that he had turned up last time and that did not do any good, so he would not turn up again. So what happened? The Prime Minister went on a television program, thanks to one of the Sydney television channels. On that program on Sunday we all saw his visits to a property at Moree, and one at Cowra and one at Echuca. It is important that we understand that the despair of the three families on those properties is not matched by the performance of this Government. The only answer that the Prime Minister gave to those three despairing families was that the Government would look at the matter and would pursue economic policies which would help them. If it be thought that economic policies would help, let me say this to the Treasurer: Far be it from me to revert to the advice that we gave him two years ago about the consequences of the prices and incomes accord; but unless there is a preparedness within government to widen its economic policy beyond its concentration on monetary policy, there is no chance that the people of Australia will be assisted. To illustrate the degree to which things are going from bad to worse, there was the increase announced by Westpac yesterday. We all remember the headlines `Bankcard interest rates soar'; `Bank interest rates up'. What was the Treasurer's response? Again, it was an irrational and emotional response that we heard in front of this House about Westpac. He said: They can't go hiding behind the Government's monetary policy. The Government has not tightened monetary policy any further. This rate increase is purely a consequence of Westpac's managerial policy. I say this advisedly to Westpac's Mastercard and Bankcard customers: If you are paying the higher rate, if there's any kicking in the pants to give, give it to the Westpac management. The people who deserve the kick in the pants are the Treasurer and his Prime Minister. If we are looking for navigators on a Russian cruise ship, what better personnel could we choose, particularly if they are sailing in uncharted waters? Yesterday we looked at the general circumstances of what was happening within the constraints of government. We all know that the gang of seven have told the Government that they are not prepared to accept cuts in their expenditure programs to allow the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to implement their personal income tax cuts. We have heard that the Treasurer wants fuel price cuts, but we do not believe that they will be enough. We know that the Prime Minister promised them on Monday, withdrew that on Friday, and said that they might come some time by 1 March. We know the consequence in the fuel price area is that every Australian fuel consumer, every farmer, businessman and motorist, is paying a price which the present import parity program does not justify. We asked a question today of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. What did he tell us? He told us that the Government was going to review the policy. If the import parity program were applied, we know that there would be an 11c a litre reduction in fuel prices at the pumps, applied as of last weekend, when light Arabian crude fell to $US15 as barrel. The Government cannot pursue a policy which calls on the people of Australia to bear the continuing and increasing burden of its own inability to control either the unions or its own spending programs. As far as the next fortnight's program of this House is concerned, we know that three new tax packages are to be introduced. Anyone who has looked at capital gains tax and who heard the Treasurer's answer yesterday to the question about the quarantining of farm losses, or who has heard about the fringe benefits proposal, would know that ordinary Australians cannot bear the cost any more. But the Treasurer just ignores all that. That does not matter; he is not concerned about the impact on investment or on small businesses. The Prime Minister ought to have a look at his mail if he is worried about small businesses. In my office this morning I received a telegram from a small business in Tamworth. It stated: This is a copy of a prepaid telegram I sent to the Prime Minister, also Mr Wran. I have had no reply . . . We have had to borrow $260,000 to put into our small company. We are also paying close to 20 per cent interest. If we don't get help soon, we won't be able to carry on. That is a story from the heart. The Prime Minister heard it from Moree, Cowra and Echuca. What has he done about it? All that we hear is: `Bankcard interest rates rise'; `Bank interest rates up'. Also, in regard to Ministers, we hear: `Cabinet rebels challenge the PM'. What is happening is that we shall have a continuation, as far as seven of the honourable gentleman's Ministers are concerned, of the spending programs, and we shall have a tightness of monetary policy, according to the Treasurer. We know that the only result of that is that someone will have to pay the price. We need to understand that internationally we are falling further and further behind in the ball game. The Treasurer takes great delight in quoting statistics about our international position. Let me tell him that the only country that has had a higher percentage increase in prices and wages amongst the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is Italy. Australia has had an 8.2 per cent increase in consumer prices, and the figure for Italy is 8.6 per cent. In money and interest rates, we know that Australia is way up at the top of the list. Our prime commercial lending rate is 20.3 per cent. The figure for Canada is 12.25 per cent; West Germany, 7.5 per cent; Japan, 5.5 per cent. The figure for the United Kingdom, the next highest is 13.5 per cent the figure of 20.3 per cent shows that the Australian rate is more than 7 percentage points higher than that of the next highest country. If we look at trade exchange rates and reserves, we find that Australia is now, again in terms of the OECD, the second highest in a table which shows that our current account balance is running at minus $7.9 billion. The circumstance of our international picture is that encouragement must be given to export industries, to productive industries and to small businesses, and the price cannot continue to be levied on the average Australian. The Government must review its overall economic program. Let us start with the whole deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It used to be said that Simon calls and Kelty cries were a trivial pursuit. They are no trivial pursuit; as far as this Government is concerned, they are a total, absolute `Say yes'. This Government is in a position in which the accord dictates monetary policy. We have had warnings, both recently and five months ago, from Bernie Fraser that the Government could not continue to rely upon it. Indeed, it will be remembered that when he spoke to the conference on corporate finance in Sydney last November he said that the Government's economic policy could collapse if it was forced to maintain high interest rates to prop up the dollar. We remember that in February, when he spoke to the Securities Institute in Perth, he said that the Federal government might have to renegotiate its accord with the unions if the trade balance failed to improve during 1986. According to the Melbourne Age the following morning, Mr Fraser said that there was not a lot of scope left for `jacking up' interest rates, adding: `Interest rates have had their day'. We are in a position in which the Secretary of the Treasury tells the Treasurer that he must change his economic program and we have the reality of the market situation, where the international trade statistics show that the Government must change its program-and all that the Treasurer does is to say: `Never mind, the trilogy is still in place'. We already know that there is a blow-out of probably at least $5.5 billion in the deficit this year. We know that overseas borrowings have exploded, and that as at 30 June last year they were already $68.5 billion. We know that the private sector represented a significant part of that, but we know that the third largest element in this year's Budget is interest on government borrowings. It is in that climate that the average Australian has a right to ask this Government to rethink its whole economic direction. It is all very well for the Treasurer to say: `Don't worry about the economic program; everything is on course'. If it is thought to be on course, why have we got the gang of seven, the rebel's challenging the Prime Minister? Why do we have the President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria saying to everyone at a book launching the other day: `Since Labor has been in office, poverty and homelessness have continued to increase'? The reality is that neither at the social security level nor at the productive level have this Government's policies been able to give protection to the people of Australia, and unless there is a change in the economic directions it will be only through increased despair and by a significant lowering of living standards that the people of Australia will be able to survive. Of course, the worst part is that the Government is here by false pretences. Before the election we had a series of optimistic forecasts. Honourable members will recall the speech last year of the Prime Minister to the business lunch in Adelaide, when he said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds, in the very near future we will harvest the crop. Harvest the crop, indeed! Bankcard interest rates have soared. Bank interest rates are up. There have been promises, too, from the Treasurer when, as shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, said: The great petrol rip-off must be curbed. Only Labor will stop this pernicious tax by stealth. On 5 March 1982 he also said: Policy ties Australian petrol prices to the price of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Any fall in the Saudi price must be passed on to Australian motorists in lower petrol prices. We have been told by the Treasurer that it is obligatory that the regime of price movements in Saudi Arabia be immediately passed on to the Australian motorist. We were told by the Prime Minister that interest rates were going to fall and as far as the dollar was concerned, he said: . . . we think that the dollar is coming up to what we think is about getting towards its right level. That is a typical tautological expression. When the Prime Minister was asked by MichaelCarlton `Which would be about what?' he said: `I guess the range of opinion is in the order of 72-75c'. This Government is pulling the two-card trick on the people of Australia. There is no doubt that it is the average man and women who are suffering. Those who live in the bush can no longer bear the burden. If this man is the world's best Treasurer, God help the country which has the worst. It is important that we find ways to help the productive industries. The rural sector can no longer bear the burden of financing the whole of the living standards of this country. This Government has turned its back on rural people. Small business is no longer able to survive. As the President of the Victorian Branch of the ALP said, homelessness and poverty will continue to increase for the average Australian. There is no basis by which this Government can pursue the economic policies it now sets unless it is prepared to move from the accord. Unless it is prepared to free monetary policy and to ease interest rates, Australians are progressively going to suffer a lower and lower standard of living and the man who today is Treasurer will be the man who is mainly responsible. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.23) —I hardly know where to begin in my reply to this charade of farrago and fiction. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) resorts to any argument, no matter how spurious, to try to fabricate a case. He talked about people suffering. I ask him: Are the 608,000 people in employment who were out of employment, when he was in office suffering? Are the 608,000 families clawed from poverty to prosperity by this Government suffering? Is the work force, with full wage maintenance since March 1983, suffering? Is the work force with tax cuts in 1984-85 suffering? Is business with profits as high as at any time in the last quarter of a century suffering? Are the extra 300,000 people with a roof over their heads suffering? Are the thousands of small businesses rescued from bankruptcy suffering? Where is this so-called crisis in economic management? Where is this suffering which we have heard so much about? If we want to trace back any suffering present in the farm sector, we will find that it was the National Party of Australia which delivered the pain with a $39 a week wage increase in 1981-82 in the middle of a drought-which was the king hit to the farm sector's cost structure-and which, with the overvalued dollar, wrecked that sector in the export markets of this world. It is the members of the National Party who put the burden on Australian agriculture. They were the people, with their massive taxation of oil, who saddled up the farm sector with this massive burden and ran the markets down. Farmers were shunted out of all of the world's export markets. The National Party sat on the sidelines and did nothing. While it was doing that, it was piling on protection from a manufacturing structure which was falling apart under the exchange rate and fiscal policies. On the one hand it was saying to rural Australia `Believe in us and trust us, we will support your interests and we will advance your cause', while at the same time it was selling rural people down the drain with its policies on protection and while it supported other areas of enterprise well and far removed from farming. It should not come into this Parliament and talk to us about the encouragement to be given to export industry. The Leader of the National Party talked about the need to encourage export industries. The National Party encouraged them with an exchange rate which ruined them in almost any market they approached, with a cost structure which saddled them with 12 per cent inflation and with a 14 per cent wage increase in 1981-82. These were the export industries which it supported. Its idea of supporting an export industry is to confect some price support system after the industry has been slapped in the mouth by world markets and by a lack of competitiveness. That is what it believes about encouragement to export industry. The Leader of the National Party had the temerity to talk about interest on government borrowings. He said that was an important part of the deterioration of the Budget. Where did the interest come from? The $9.6 billion disastrous fiscal inheritance from the coalition. That is where it came from. It left us with an enormous mess; with the economy collapsed, with negative growth for the first time for 30 years, with 300,000 families on top of the estimated 400,000 families-700,000 families in all-damned to the poverty of unemployment, with a collapse in home building and with the farm sector in crisis through the drought. That is the inheritance that the Opposition left us with. Fancy trying to contrast that with the position today. The Leader of the National Party talked about the farm sector. If the exchange rate in the Opposition's last three years in government were at parity with other currencies around the world, it would have meant Australian agriculture receiving $1,500m additional earnings for export produce in the last two years of the drought. The Opposition robbed farmers of $3,000m of earnings in the last two years of the drought because it would not adjust its exchange rate policies because it had no incomes policy or wages policy. As well as that, in terms of the relative improvement in costs-the fact that we have a lower cost structure and a lower wage structure-there is another $500m a year more by which the Australian farm sector has been advantaged by this Government. There is $1,500m on the exchange rate as well as the $500m on costs. Farmers are $2 billion a year better off because of the policies of this Government. The Opposition is fooling nobody. It is an irrelevant political group. The Opposition went to the Business Council of Australia, which it thought it could rely on for support, and what did it find? It found that it was laughed out of the place. The Opposition was told by the Business Council that it was an irrelevancy and a joke, that it had no anti-inflationary policy and that its wages policy would not work. We find that this week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said that he does not believe in any downward flexibility in wages. His whole opting out policy is now a shambles. He now says there is a floor underneath it and that the only flexibility is upwards, which is the very thing he was told by the people running businesses, the people who were at that Business Council meeting. They told him that the Opposition's wages policy is a joke and that it would re-ignite Australia's inflation. We now find that after all these great ideas by the Leader of the Opposition he has no wages policy. The principal foundation of any decent anti-inflation policy has now evaporated. Under a coalition government wages would take off again and the profit restoration, so hard won in these last two years of getting profits back to their appropriate level of gross domestic product in the economy, would be cut to pieces. Those opposite are not fooling anybody at the Business Council of Australia, which knows that in running a business profits would be run into the ground under the Opposition's policies because it does not have a wages policy. It would be back to its same old tricks of overvaluing the exchange rate, except that now with a floating rate the market would be on to the Opposition like a ton of bricks. That is why those opposite are irrelevant to the business community, the labour market and the trade unions-all the major players-unions, labour, big business, small business, farms. Mr Sinclair —Did you have a look at the paper this morning? Look at this. Here is your wages policy. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the National Party brings in this hackneyed stuff. He is swanning around in opposition. He is enjoying it. He has got the VIP planes to take him to Tamworth and the trip abroad. He is picking up $75,000 a year. Why not? He always wanted to be- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I am on a point of order. The Treasurer should resume his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will not speak while the Chair is speaking. The Treasurer will resume his seat. If the honourable member for O'Connor continues to interject across the table the Chair will deal with him. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. The Treasurer has commenced a personal attack. I am about to warn him what he will get if he does. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —This loopy. Let me just make this clear- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that statement, or I shall mention Kristine. Mr KEATING —If the honourable member stops interjecting, I will withdraw it. The loopy crim from O'Connor is at it again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Chair has ruled that there was no point of order. Mr Tuckey —Kristine had a little girl called Paul- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting while the Chair is speaking. Mr KEATING —You stupid foul mouthed grub. Mr Tuckey —No, you are, you grub. Mr KEATING —You piece of criminal garbage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —What about him? On a point of order- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The Leader of the National Party has proposed a matter of public importance. He was heard in silence. All speakers will be heard in silence without interruption, without spurious points of order, without noise or interjection; otherwise the Chair will deal with those members who act in a disorderly fashion. The Chair will deal with those people promptly. Mr MacKellar —I take a point of order. Given your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, is it in order for an honourable member to refer to another honourable member as a piece of criminal garbage and get away with it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair did not hear it. The reason that the Chair did not hear was that both the honourable member for O'Connor and other members of the Opposition were-- Mr N.A. Brown —Ask the Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will be quiet. Mr N.A. Brown —Ask the Treasurer again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will not argue with the Chair. The honourable member for Warringah has raised a point of order. The Chair has advised the honourable members that because of the noise and interjections in the chamber the Chair did not hear the remarks. Mr N.A. Brown —Ask the Treasurer again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party persists in interjecting while the Chair is on his feet, I will name him. There will be no interjections while the Chair is on his feet. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. The Treasurer has not yet withdrawn. I request that he withdraw. Now I know how Kristine felt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Treasurer used offending words, he will withdraw. Mr Keating —I raise a point of order. This member sits at the table and hurls what he believes to be personal obscenities at me privately across the chamber. When I respond, he demands a withdrawal. I do not mind withdrawing, but if the Opposition wishes to employ such methods as a tactic-I answered the Leader of the National Party's matter of public importance appropriately today-and if I am to be insulted and interrupted in a permanent way-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take it that the Treasurer has withdrawn the remarks. He may continue his remarks. Mr KEATING —I withdraw the remarks. Given the fact that the Opposition has no interest in the matter it raises, I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.43) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for O'Connor making a statement on the exploding domestic interest rates and the Treasurer's mishandling of the Australian economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer has escaped this place-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for O'Connor be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J.S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. GDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M.J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr N.A. Brown(Diamond Valley)(3.52) —I second the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the most disgraceful exhibition of cowardice that this Parliament has ever seen. The Government is running scared, particularly the Treasurer (Mr Keating)- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.57) —This Government can cut and run every day but we will come back in here- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes ... 77 Noes ... 61 Majority ... 16 AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, Allan Dawkins, J. S. Morris Peter Dubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. NOES Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, Ian Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, David Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Tuckey's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. J. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That Orders of the Day Nos. 3 to 8 be postponed until a later hour this day. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Hawke, and read a first time. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to move the introduction of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. It represents yet another milestone in this Government's record of improving the status of women and is evidence of our firm commitment to enhance women's job opportunities. This Bill will require certain employers to have an affirmative action program for women and to report their progress to the Government, through the Director of Affirmative Action. The objects of an affirmative action program will be to eliminate discrimination against women and to promote equal employment opportunity for women. This legislation is necessary to ensure that all large employers take seriously their obligations to their women employees. The changing role of women in our society is reflected, to a large extent, in the changing patterns in the workforce. The Government is determined that women should be able to enter and compete in the labour market on an equal footing with men and that outdated prejudices or conventions should not prevent them from fully participating. Neither individual employers nor the nation can afford to waste the valuable contributions which women can, and do, make to our economy. Affirmative action programs are designed to ensure that any existing discrimination is identified and removed, and that equal opportunity is a reality in the large work places in this country. The policy which is reflected in this legislation has been developed in full consultation with all groups affected by it, in particular the trade union movement, employers and women's organisations. We developed the policy in a gradual and realistic way to ensure that it was fully understood and to give those affected the opportunity to influence its final shape. I am confident that the result, which I present to you today, Madam Speaker, represents a workable and practical way of assisting women to pursue work opportunities to the best of their abilities. Soon after coming to government, we passed the Sex Discrimination Act-an important reform which provides for the resolution of individual and group complaints of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. Affirmative action programs are designed to complement anti-discrimination legislation by eliminating any rules or practices which may unfairly disadvantage women in the work place and by promoting equal opportunity. In June 1984, I tabled the policy discussion paper `Affirmative Action for Women'. To test the Government's proposals as outlined in that paper, we established the affirmative action pilot program and 28 large private sector companies and three higher education institutions accepted my invitation to participate. The pilot program ran for 12 months, concluding in July last year, and the contribution of those employers has been invaluable in the development of the legislation I am introducing today. I would like to express my appreciation of their efforts, and of their willingness to take part in such an innovative scheme. The Government also established a Representative Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation. Its members came from government, business, trade unions, higher education, women's organisations and the Opposition and it was chaired on my behalf by Senator Susan Ryan, who assists me on the status of women. Its tasks were to monitor the pilot program and to advise on the form and content of the legislation the Government had committed itself to introduce. In November 1985, I released the Working Party's report. Its major recommendation was for the introduction of legislation to require all higher education institutions and private sector employers with 100 or more staff to develop and implement affirmative action programs for women. I am very pleased that, despite the differences of opinion on the need for legislation expressed by some members and on the content of the recommended legislation expressed by others, the Working Party was able to agree on an approach. The views of all Working Party members are outlined in the report, and let me acknowledge the difficult job members had in reconciling their very different views. I thank them for their dedication. The legislation I present to the House today reflects their willingness to work hard to achieve a result that was, in the end, acceptable to all. The other recommendations of the Working Party have also been adopted by the Government. A conference will be held later this year to reach agreement on how to remove legislative restrictions to women's employment while not, of course, jeopardising the safety or health of any worker. Many of these restrictions are within the jurisdiction of State governments, but this initiative by the Commonwealth, I trust, will facilitate the establishing of new standards which will be acceptable to all parties. I will shortly be writing to State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory asking them to look at whether some current building and fire regulations are unnecessarily complex or reflect outmoded standards and inhibit employers establishing child care facilities for their staff. The Commonwealth Schools Commission is currently undertaking detailed consultations with State and non-government education authorities and relevant community organisations on a draft national policy on the education of girls. The policy is expected to be finalised later this year. Progress is being made towards the development of a co-ordinated initiative to encourage women to undertake engineering. To this end, proposals are currently being considered for funding under the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's equity program. I will now outline the major components of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. The Bill will cover Australia's 19 universities and 46 colleges of advanced education and all private sector organisations which employ 100 or more staff. The implementation of the legislation will be phased in over several years. It will apply first to higher education institutions. They will be required to commence their affirmative action programs on 1 August 1986 and to make their first reports to the Director of Affirmative Action by 1 August 1987. Many institutions already have begun programs to improve women's employment opportunities. The legislation will ensure that the same employment standards exist in our national system of higher education. Turning now to the private sector, I want to stress that the legislation does not cover small business. While the Government believes that in areas such as advertising and recruitment, small business should be non-discriminatory, it recognises that small business does not have the capacity to undertake the full import of the legislation. The Bill provides that an employer whose staff numbers fall below 100 will still be covered unless and until the number of employees falls below 80. Organisations employing 1,000 or more employees will be the first to comply and will be required to commence their affirmative action programs on 1 February 1987 and to report to the Director of Affirmative Action on 1 February 1988. There are approximately 510 employers with more than 1,000 staff. They are Australia's major employers and the Government has accepted the working party's recommendation that it is appropriate that they should meet these legislative obligations first. Some of them were involved in the Pilot Program; others sought assistance from the Office of the Status of Women and began preparing programs. The timetable proposed means that these very large employers have almost two years from today before they are required to report. We believe that this phasing in will allow employers adequate time to meet the obligations proposed in the legislation. It is a reasonable timetable. The definitions in the Bill require employers, when counting their employees for the purposes of determining whether they are covered by legislation, to include all subsidiaries. The Bill follows the Companies Act definitions of subsidiary companies' relationships to parent companies. The second period of the phasing in will be for employers with between 500 and 999 employees. Approximately 520 employers will be required to commence affirmative action programs on 1 February 1988 and report first on 1 February 1989. Employers employing between 100 and 499 employees will commence on 1 February 1989, with their first reports being due on 1 February 1990. This final stage will cover approximately 3,430 enterprises. The Government is determined that this important new reform for working women will not become unnecessarily bureaucratised. We do not want to burden employers with unnecessary paperwork; nor do we want the small agency we intend to create to administer the legislation to become bogged down with an unmanageable and superfluous paper burden. The phasing in of the legislation will help us to achieve a streamlined operation. Employers covered by the legislation will be required to provide two reports each year. The public report will be short, providing a breakdown of employees by sex and job classification and a description of the progress of the affirmative action program. The confidential report will provide greater detail to the Director of the progress being made under the eight steps of the program. The Bill provides that information from this report cannot be released without the employer's consent. Employers will have total control over the use of confidential information they provide to the Director. It will be an offence for any person to release this report or other confidential information provided to the Director, with a penalty of up to $2,500 or imprisonment for up to three months or both. The penalty reflects the seriousness of the undertaking being given by the Government that these reports will, in fact, be confidential. We do not intend that the compilation of these reports will pose an onerous task on the employer. Mostly, they will entail forwarding to the Director information and data on staffing and personnel procedures which most progressive companies already collect. The Government has accepted the working party's recommendation that there be two separate reports in order to provide an acceptable mix of some public accountability while protecting from public gaze any information companies wish to keep confidential. Employers will be required to allocate some staff and resources to the program, particularly in the initial phase. We would expect that those initial costs will become insignificant when spread over the time scale required to integrate affirmative action activities into usual personnel practices. During the pilot program the participants agreed that affirmative action made `good business sense' and is `sound personnel practice'. The Australian Commissioner of Taxation has ruled that the expenses incurred by employers in implementing affirmative action programs would be deductible under section 51 (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If the expenditure involves plant or equipment, the normal depreciation provisions would apply. Madam Speaker, let me go to the heart of our legislation-the program whose progress employers will report to the Government each year. There are eight steps to such a program and I will quickly run through them. The employer will issue a policy statement and give appropriate staff members responsibility for the program. Consultations will be held with trade unions where they have members in the work place and with employees, particularly women employees. A statistical analysis of the work force will be produced to develop a profile of the work force by job classifications and sex. A review of all personnel policies and practices will be undertaken to ensure that these are not disadvantaging women. Finally, employers will set objectives and forward estimates and will monitor and evaluate these annually. The setting of objectives and forward estimates is an essential part of an affirmative action program. On the recommendation of the working party, we have adopted this terminology to replace the earlier terms `goals' and `targets'. The Bill ensures employers are not required to take any action which is incompatible with the merit principle. I want to stress that the Government's affirmative action legislation does not propose positive discrimination or reverse discrimination. We are totally opposed to the use of quotas, and this legislation, by stating that all actions are to be based on merit, makes this clear. Those opponents of equal opportunity for women who try to discredit our legislative approach by claiming that we are proposing quotas are wrong. The Bill clearly demonstrates that. It is also clear from the definitions of objectives and forward estimates contained in the legislation that these are to be determined by the employer and not imposed by the Director of Affirmative Action. The Director will be required to make an annual report to the Parliament, through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Director also has the power to make other reports to the Parliament, also through the Minister. The director could use this provision to prepare special reports on the employment of women in particular industries or occupations or to provide information on successful approaches and methods for effective affirmative action programs. The Director will be a statutory officer, appointed by the Governor-General, for a period of up to five years. The position will be within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and the office of the Director will be situated in Sydney, and not isolated in Canberra away from the businesses and institutions affected by the legislation. The Director will have a number of statutory functions and powers, including the primary one of advising and assisting employers on their affirmative action programs and monitoring and evaluating the reports lodged. There is a considerable amount of work to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the legislation, to ensure that it operates in an orderly and productive fashion. I have therefore decided to establish a small interim agency in my Department until the permanent agency can be established. This interim agency will begin the preparatory work of assessing the potential information needs of employers and methods of meeting those, and of devising the form of the reports which will eventually be required. I will ask the agency to report to me at the commencement of the legislation on the preparatory work and on its recommendations for the operation of the permanent agency. The Bill provides for the establishment of representative advisory committees, to provide advice to the Minister and the Director. The members of a committee would be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Director. It is envisaged that the Minister might appoint committees to provide general advice or a committee might be established to advise on a particular industry or occupation. I believe that the consultation process which has been used to develop this legislation should be continued. Both the Director and the Minister would benefit from the views of those closely involved with the relevant issues. The Government's approach in this important area of women's employment has been based on extensive consultation with all parties. It is not a punitive approach. Rather, it seeks to foster the development of affirmative action programs in an atmosphere of consensus and co-operation between government and employers. This approach is also reflected in the only sanction provided in the Bill: The Director's power to name in a report to Parliament any employer who fails to lodge either report or who fails to provide further information on request. The Bill provides for employers with a reasonable excuse for such failure to escape the proposed sanction. The Bill also provides for an employer to apply to the Director for an extension of time of up to six months in which to lodge the reports. The Director may grant such an extension where there are reasonable grounds for the request. The Government intends the Director to continue the harmonious relationships built up between pilot program companies, employers' representatives, the higher education sector, the trade union movement and the Office of the Status of Women. In selecting the Director, the Government will be looking for a person able to maintain this harmony and to be sensitive to private sector and higher education ways of operating. I give the assurance that this legislation will not be administered in a heavy-handed fashion. I am confident that the vast majority of large employers in this country wish to co-operate with the Government's aims of ensuring that Australian women who wish to work are not denied any opportunity for which they are qualified. The Government is of the view that there is a need for all employers, whether in the private or public sector, to conform to the principles of equal opportunity in employment. The measures in this Bill are similar to those measures required to be undertaken by Commonwealth Government departments. I might add that consideration is currently being given to the appropriate legislative mechanisms for the coverage of Commonwealth Government statutory authorities. Other interested parties have been doing their own work in this important employment area. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has prepared an affirmative action manual to assist trade union members and officials to make a useful contribution to the development of affirmative action in Australia. Last year, the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry announced the establishment of the Council for Equal Employment Opportunity to actively promote equal opportunity throughout the private sector. They propose to establish a formal register of participating companies and a board to oversee the staff working with the companies. I expect the Director of Affirmative Action to work in close co-operation with this venture when it is established. The Business Council also intends to publish a book, based on the experiences of the pilot program companies. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill is a major Government initiative which is designed to remove any existing obstacles to women fully participating in the Australian work force. It is a forward looking and imaginative approach to improving women's job opportunities and I am sure the result will bear out the Government's commitment to this policy. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1986 is intended to ensure the more effective operation and administration of the Australian Federal Police. One of the functions the AFP is currently required to perform is the protection of persons from time to time considered under threat, including Ministers of the Crown, judges and witnesses. At present it is not clear that the powers conferred on the members of the AFP under section 9 of the Act adequately cover this protective function if it is performed outside the Australian Capital Territory and beyond the limits of Commonwealth places in the States and the Northern Territory. At present, section 9 gives a member of the AFP the powers and duties of an officer of the Police in the State in which the member is acting only in relation to certain functions of the AFP. The Bill would extend these functions to include the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests, thereby giving members of the AFP clear power to discharge the protective function. In recent years one of the more valuable tools used by the Police in the fight against the drug trade is the use of dogs to detect illicit drugs. No provision is made in the AFP Act or in any other Commonwealth legislation to govern the use of police dogs. Most jurisdictions prohibit or restrict the access of animals to a number of areas. Clearly, there are occasions when the use of police dogs in otherwise restricted places would be highly desirable. Accordingly, an amendment is proposed which would provide that a police dog under the control of a police dog handler may lawfully be in any place where it is lawful for the handler to be, in his capacity as a member of the AFP. This does not give any new rights of entry to the Police. It simply allows a police dog to accompany its handler. There are occasions when a member of the AFP is seconded to a State police force or to another relevant body or organisation, or where a member of the AFP is given special leave to undertake service with a foreign government or with certain institutions, or to undertake studies or research. Sections 33 and 34 of the Act enable arrangements to be made for secondment or special leave. It is not clear, however, whether members seconded under section 33 or given special leave under section 34 have the powers of an AFP member or are subject to disciplinary provisions normally applicable to AFP members. Provisions of this Bill will make it clear that a seconded member retains powers as an AFP member and is subject to the disciplinary provisions. For members on leave of absence the disciplinary provisions will apply, with the exception of members granted leave to serve as members of the Australian Federal Police Association. The amendment to section 29 of the Act will permit transfer of the administration of AFP promotion appeals and management initiated retirement and redeployment appeals to the Merit Protection and Review Agency, in keeping with the object for which the Agency was established. Finally, an amendment to section 70 of the Australian Federal Police Act is proposed to permit the making of regulations in relation to the disposal of unclaimed property. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is to propose amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 arising from the Government's review of foreign investment policy, the results of which were announced on 29 October 1985. The modifications to the policy have been designed to streamline the existing processes, facilitate certain types of investment proposals and contribute to the Government's wider aim of reducing the burden on business of government regulation. The policy modifications were decided upon having regard to the continuing need for a balance to be struck between the economic benefits of foreign investment and community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources. That need, I believe, has been recognised by all parties for over a decade now and will continue to be recognised by this Government. The Government welcomes and encourages foreign investment that has beneficial economic effects and is consistent with the needs and aspirations of the Australian community. The Government, in its assessment of proposals for investment in Australia, continues to give substantial weight to their development and employment creating aspects; to keeping the degree of foreign ownership and control within acceptable bounds; and to ensuring that through the Australian equity participation guidelines there are opportunities for Australians to participate in the development of local industries and resources. As I announced on 29 October 1985, the necessary amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act arise from the Government's decisions to exempt acquisitions by foreign investors of existing mining exploration rights and to increase the `off-shore takeovers' threshold. These two proposed amendments affect sections 5 and 13 of the principal Act. Acquisitions by foreign interests of mineral exploration rights generally do not raise sensitive issues concerning ownership and control of Australian resources and are not, therefore, required to satisfy the normal policy criteria. Proposed mining developments resulting from successful exploration will still need to be submitted for examination under foreign investment policy and such proposals will continue to be subject to the Australian equity participation guidelines. The proposed amendments to section 13 of the Act will raise the threshold above which off-shore takeovers are subject to examination under the Act. Off-shore takeovers are those where an off-shore company with assets in Australia is acquired by another off-shore company. This type of transaction does not involve any reduction in Australian ownership and control and has been found in practice to be unlikely to raise issues contrary to the national interest. At present, the Act requires the notification of off-shore takeovers if the value of the Australian assets involved exceeds $3m, a threshold which has not been adjusted since it was established in 1975. The proposed amendments will raise the threshold to $20m. Where the Australian assets represent 50 per cent or more of the world-wide assets of the business being acquired, the notification requirement remains irrespective of the value of the Australian assets. The Bill proposes some additional amendments to the Act which do not affect the features or administration of the Government's foreign investment policy. They are designed to tidy up the Act and bring it up to date following changes in other Commonwealth legislation. They will, for instance, remove from the Act those provisions which have been made redundant by amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act and the Judiciary Act. The Bill will have no financial impact. The proposed amendments to sections 5 and 13 of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 represent only one part of the overall package of foreign investment policy modifications I announced on 29 October last year. The changes announced at that time that did not require statutory implementation have already been implemented by administrative action. Under those changes, the `opportunities test' was abolished. Certain thresholds under foreign investment policy were increased significantly and policy in respect of merchant banks. Other non-bank financial institutions, insurance companies and real estate was liberalised. In total, the changes to foreign investment policy announced last October represent a major step towards reducing the regulatory costs of foreign investment policy. Based on past experience, the changes will either exempt from examination or simplify and streamline the examination process for around one-third of proposals that have been subject to foreign investment screening. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to the removal of those parts of regulations which are burdensome and contribute little benefit to Australia. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(4.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Australian Citizenship Act provides the basis for the acquisition of Australian citizenship by birth in Australia, by descent through birth of a child to an Australian parent living overseas and by grant to persons who have come to Australia to settle. It also provides the basis for the loss, renunciation, deprivation and resumption of Australian citizenship. Amendment of the Act in 1984 gave effect to the Government's commitment to ensure that the Act does not discriminate between persons on the basis of their sex, marital status and present or previous nationality and to provide for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made under the Act. These amendments came into effect on 22 November 1984. Australia is one of the few remaining countries which confers citizenship automatically upon a child born here, unless one of its parents was at the time of its birth a diplomat or a consular representative of a foreign country or an enemy alien. This generosity in our law can be exploited by visitors and illegal immigrants who have children born here in order to seek to achieve residence in Australia. It has become the source of increasing litigation, complaints to the Human Rights Commission and appeals to the media from people trying to avoid leaving Australia. The Human Rights Commission, in its reports numbered 10 and 15 on the Au Yueng and Yilmaz cases, commented that there was nothing in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which required the children of illegal immigrants to become Australian citizens merely because they were born in Australia. The Commission further commented that it might be fairer in the long run to change the rule that birth in Australia automatically results in Australian citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. It recommended that if any change were made to the law it should be such as to ensure that such a child, if it would otherwise be stateless, had Australian citizenship. The Government has accepted this approach. The Government will maintain the provision that children born to an Australian citizen or a permanent resident parent automatically acquires Australian citizenship at birth. It agrees that the children of illegal immigrants, visitors and others temporarily in Australia should not automatically become Australian citizens. However, the Government will ensure that no child born in Australia becomes stateless. Clause 4 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill will restrict automatic citizenship to a child born in Australia who has one parent who is either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. Clause 8 of the Bill will ensure that a child born in Australia, who is not eligible to acquire Australian citizenship by birth, is an Australian citizen provided the child is not and never had been eligible to acquire the nationality or citizenship of another country. This will fulfil Australia's international obligations to prevent statelessness. A right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be provided under clause 9 against decisions that the person had reasonable prospects of acquiring citizenship of another country. I propose to introduce an amendment to the Migration Act in the near future which will have the effect of conferring upon a new born non-citizen child the same immigration status as one of its parents. If their immigration status differs, the child will be given the status of the one with the longer unexpired period of permitted stay in Australia. The second significant change proposed by the Bill relates to the resumption of Australian citizenship under the provisions of section 23aa of the Act. When the Act was last amended it empowered the Minister to approve resumption of Australian citizenship in certain circumstances. Former Australians who lost their citizenship after 22 November 1984 by acquiring the citizenship of another country under some form of compulsion, economic necessity or without realising the consequences of their actions were able to have it restored. I have received representations from some former Australian citizens who had lost their citizenship prior to 22 November 1984 requesting that the resumption provisions be made retrospective. The Government has agreed that the provisions of section 23aa should be applicable to any former Australian citizen, subject to the condition that the person concerned should demonstrate a commitment to Australia. That commitment would be based on the applicant having had two years lawful residence in Australia at any time, and satisfying the Minister that he or she intends to return here within three years to live permanently and that he or she has maintained a close and continuing relationship with Australia. I would like to add here something which is not in the typed version of this second reading speech but which I have mentioned to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), namely that, since the Bill was drafted, I have given further study to the contention that the requirement that a person should intend to return to live in Australia may be unduly onerous as it is presently drawn. There are a number of concerns. One of them is that the Bill could, for example, be read to exclude people who intend to return to Australia to live, but who also expect to live or work overseas again, even for a brief period, at some later stage in their life. I am obtaining advice on this matter, and may propose a minor amendment to the legislation when the Bill is brought on for debate. This is another example of the Government and its advisers being willing to listen to community concerns and act appropriately. These amendments will be effected by clause 7 of the Bill. The clause will also permit a child who had lost its citizenship to resume it with its parent. The third significant change which this Bill proposes relates to the form of oath or affirmation of allegiance. Candidates for the grant of citizenship are required to repeat the word `I' and then state their name before renouncing their former allegiance and taking the oath or making the affirmation of allegiance. This is unnecessary because the candidates have already been identified and will be identified again when called to receive their certificates. Furthermore, as members who attend citizenship ceremonies know so well, in many cases the requirement creates confusion and this confusion often detracts from the ceremony and distracts candidates' attention from the more important declaration of allegiance and commitment to obey the law. The form of oath or affirmation of allegiance also requires candidates to `renounce all other allegiance'. Renunciation is ambiguous and unnecessary. Some candidates think that it requires them to renounce not only other allegiances but also their cultural background and all other ties with their country of origin. In many cases renunciation does not affect the previous nationality or citizenship of candidates because the nationality laws of many countries permit their nationals to have more than one citizenship. Some Commonwealth citizens, for example, find renunciation confusing because the Queen of Australia is also the Head of State in their country of origin. National consultations in 1982 and the Human Rights Commission recommend either the clarification of the phrase or its deletion. We have chosen the latter option. Clause 11 of the Bill will delete the renunciation phrase and also the requirement that candidates state their names when taking the oath or making the affirmation of allegiance. Finally the Bill will make a number of machinery and technical amendments to the Act by: Removing sex-specific language from the Act; empowering the making of regulations to permit the remission, refund and waiver of, or exemption from, fees payable under the Act; prescribing that all former Australian citizens are ineligible to reacquire citizenship by grant within 12 months of having lost it; prohibiting the exercise of the discretion to defer consideration of an application for citizenship where the applicant has not met the residential requirements of the Act; and waiving the strict residential requirements where they have not been met due to an administrative error in the issuance of entry permits under the Migration Act. The financial impact of this Bill is estimated to be $80,000 to publicise the changes to the Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, for Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(5.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable coverage of all ships in the territorial sea and coastal waters of Australia by Federal marine pollution legislation. It represents a further step in the legislative process leading to the ratification by Australia of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of 1978. The Convention and Protocol, often referred to as MARPOL 73-78, will be implemented chiefly by the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. The Bill for that Act passed through the Parliament during theautumn sittings in 1983 with bipartisan support. It was essentially the same as one introduced by the former Government, which lapsed as a result of the dissolution of Parliament. The purpose of the MARPOL Convention is to control operational discharges of oil and other harmful substances from ships and to minimise the possibility of accidental discharges of such substances. In practical terms the aim of early Australian ratification is to prohibit discharges of oil and noxious chemicals within the Great Barrier Reef region and other areas protected by the Convention. It will also allow Australia to enforce more stringent construction and operating standards on visiting ships, for example, segregated ballast tank and crude oil washing requirements. The Government is committed to giving effect to international conventions in the transport field and related areas involving the protection of the environment. Our policy calls for the promotion of `the conclusion, ratification and application of transport conventions under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialised agencies'. Australia has an extensive coastline and spread of territorial waters. It is fundamentally important that we be able to demonstrate to ourselves and the international community that we take our responsibility for this national and global resource seriously, and that we are committed to its protection. This is especially the case in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, for which special provision is made in the MARPOL Convention itself. The MARPOL Convention represents only one aspect, though an extremely important one, of the Government's commitment to give effect to international conventions promoted by the International Maritime Organisation. As honourable members will be aware, the IMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations, concerned with promoting the safety of shipping and the protection of the marine environment. Its main objective is to provide a forum for co-operation among its members and to develop appropriate legislation and practices. Australia is a foundation member of the organisation and has been active in developing many conventions. It has recently been elected to the Council of the IMO. The Hawke Government's active participation in the organisation's work is demonstrated by Australia becoming party to the following conventions: The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and its 1978 Protocol; the 1983 Amendment to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966; the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 and the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973; the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and its 1976 Protocol; the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978; the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979; and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. It is important that Australia remain in the forefront of international initiatives relating to the protection of the marine environment. This object can be achieved by supporting the Bill. In my second reading speech of 25 May 1983 on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill, I noted the jurisdictional arrangements recommended by the then Marine and Ports Council of Australia. These arrangements required the enactment of complementary Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory legislation before Australia could ratify MARPOL. Let me now turn to the Bill itself. As I have previously stated, its sole object is to enable the early Australian implementation of the MARPOL Convention by extending the Federal marine pollution legislation to cover all ships in the territorial sea and the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea. This action has become necessary because of the significant and continuing delay which has occurred in the enactment of the complementary State and Territory legislation which is at present needed to enable the implementation of this Convention. I can assure the House that the present Bill does not infringe the rights of any State or Territory because it contains a saving provision which will ensure that the Commonwealth legislation will not apply when appropriate State or Territory legislation is in force to cover areas within the relevant jurisdiction. I must make it clear that State and Territory Ministers responsible for Transport and Marine matters have been kept informed of these developments through their membership of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. When ATAC met at Canberra on 10 April 1985, I informed Ministers that, if complementary legislation was not in place by the end of 1985, the Commonwealth would legislate to implement the Convention. This statement followed a series of requests that I had made at previous meetings and in correspondence with Ministers that their legislation be enacted as quickly as possible. The matter was also raised at the meetings ATAC held at Perth on 28 June 1985 and at Hobart on 6 December 1985. On those occasions I again emphasised that the Federal Government was anxious to ratify the MARPOL Convention at the earliest opportunity. No objection to the proposed action by the Federal Government was raised by any member of the Council at any meeting. However, good intentions notwithstanding, by the end of 1985, no Bill relating to the implementation of the MARPOL Convention has been placed before the legislature of any State or Territory. The delay in becoming party to this Convention has placed Australia in an embarrassing situation internationally. The majority of foreign flag shipping using Australian waters is currently subject to more stringent operational controls, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef region, than are Australian vessels. The subject matter of MARPOL, dealing as it does with measures for preventing marine pollution, is often very complex. The need to keep up with constantly changing technical standards leads to quite frequent amendments proposed by the International Maritime Organisation. In order to ensure that the Australian legislation gives full effect to the Convention, it is necessary to ensure that the enabling Act remains consistent with the Convention as it is in force internationally. It thus becomes essential to amend the Federal Act from time to time. The Bill before the House would enable amendments made by the International Maritime Organisation, agreed to by ATAC and endorsed by the Federal Government, to take effect throughout Australia until such time as the individual State and Territory governments amend their own legislation. For this reason alone, I am confident that the principles embodied in this Bill will be readily accepted by all concerned in the development and enforcement of marine pollution legislation. Further details of the provisions of this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Orders of the Day Nos. 3 to 8. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.13) —I wish to retrace a little of what I was saying prior to the suspension of the sitting in order to strengthen the argument I was presenting at that stage. Reflecting on these Bills which, of course, were designed entirely to lift the profile of our nation in agricultural research, I had commended the farmers in my electorate for the initiative they have shown in being prepared, mostly by observation, to carry out research on farm. I made the point, I hope effectively, that agricultural research is not merely a matter of production increase. That is easy enough to achieve. As I said, anyone can achieve production increase simply by the addition of more water or more fertiliser. Agricultural research is more a matter of production increase without an additional increase in input costs. What we are seeking in agricultural research is the opportunity to see a rise in production without a matching rise in the quantity of input units to achieve the rise in production. That is a particularly valid point. There is very little point in going ahead with agricultural research unless that research can stand on its merit and be justified in terms of increased productivity, in a net sense, from the work in hand. I made the point that one of the great areas for production increase is plant genetic structure and the research that needs to be done to ensure that the plants that we currently use in horticulture and agriculture are of maximum productivity. A change in the available plant genetic material allows us with research to make the most gains because in that area, with very little input and still using the same sort of plant but a different root stock, we can see a dramatic rise in the productivity of that plant without a dramatic rise in the initial cost of the plant. The other great advantage of agricultural research, if it is virile in Australia, is that it allows us to share with overseas researchers much of what has happened in our nation. We can take developments that have occurred here and see developments that have occurred overseas and thus further sharpen the effective productivity of Australian agriculture. In fact, we benefit from this sharing because we are no longer cocooned in isolation. It was in the context of these remarks that I drew the attention of the House to the particular need that we have for plant variety rights which allow us to share in additional productivity increases without great increases in the on-costs of the plants that we are using. I must stress the particular need that the nation currently has for plant variety rights legislation to allow Australia to share in genetic developments in the rest of the world. It is worth pointing out that, in the general area of agricultural research, there has been a dramatic rise in the tonnage per hectare, kilograms per tree or bushels per acre for various crops produced. As it is an industry with which I am somewhat familiar I took a look at the citrus industry. It had the advantage of allowing me to look at an industry in which annual returns do not fluctuate dramatically because its dependence on climatic conditions is not as acute as are non-irrigated crops. In the citrus industry alone, as a result of research, the quantity of citrus produced has gone from 84 kilograms per tree to 105 kilograms per tree over less than a 10-year time span. Over precisely the same time span, I was interested to note that production in an industry that is also not as dramatically affected by climatic change because of the measure of irrigation applied-I refer to the dairy industry-has gone from 3,163 litres per cow to 3,859 litres per cow. Everyone in this House is familiar with the fact that there have been dramatic increases in production of all crops as a result of the research that has occurred in Australian agriculture. But what is causing particular frustration in the rural sector today is that, in spite of these movements in research and in spite of the increased tonnages available because of what either Australian farmers have observed or Australian researchers have proved for them, we have a fall in real farm productivity, that is, if one measures farm productivity by the capacity of a farm to be productive in money terms. I was interested to note that in the dairy industry, in the same period in which that industry has seen the increase from 3,163 litres to 3,859 litres, the nominal rate of return to capital and management, excluding capital appreciation, has fallen from 2.3 per cent to minus 1.1 per cent in the years 1980 to 1985. Of course, it is this fall, in the face of the increased productivity that has resulted from research and hard work, that is causing much of the present frustration in rural Australia. It is little wonder that there is rural disquiet abroad when productivity increases in rural areas are not being reflected in real economic gains. It is worth stressing that, while much of Australia currently is pleading for productivity increases to be taken into account either in a wage hearing or in respect of some form of superannuation advantage, the rural industry, which has had productivity increases, currently faces a fall in real income. I want to pick up in my closing remarks some of what was said by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) when he participated in the debate earlier this day. The honourable member for McMillan was apprehensive about the capacity of Australian farmers to put into place the advantages that research may offer them. He was uneasy about whether the extension opportunities that currently exist in State departments of agriculture are adequate to see these research advantages put in place. I have to stress that I believe the honourable member for McMillan was erroneous in suggesting that it was necessary for the dairy industry to face deregulation. In fact, he said that, because of our attitude, this side of the House had crippled opportunity for the dairy industry to be restructured. He was keen to have additional deregulation. I feel it is pertinent to draw to his attention a comment made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) earlier this week when, in reply to a question from the honourable member, if you please, the Minister said: The dairy industry is probably even more complicated because there will always be a need for regulation in the dairy industry. A little later, in his closing remarks, he said: We will not be bothered about regulation and deregulation and all this ideology and the nonsense from the Opposition. The Minister for Primary Industry and the honourable member for McMillan would do well to get together and determine precisely what direction they think the dairy industry ought to be taking and precisely what measure of regulation ought to apply. In deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I return precisely to the Bills before the House. The Bills propose an increase in the maximum rate of levy which can be applied for research purposes to 0.5 per cent of the industry's current gross value of production. The Bills will allow increases in the operative rates of levy by regulation from time to time. There are five Bills and they all meet with the approval of the Opposition. The Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill will increase the maximum rate of levy from 50c to 75c per tonne when the current operative levy is 35c. The Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill increases the maximum rate from $2 to $5 when the current operative rate of levy is $1.50 per tonne for dried tree fruits, $7.50 per tonne for dried plums, and $5 per tonne for other dried fruits. The Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill will increase the maximum rate of levy from 13c to 20c per head for sheep, lamb and goats, and from $1 to $2 per head for cattle and buffaloes, when the current operative rates are 5c per head for sheep and 50c for cattle and buffaloes. The Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill increases the maximum rate of levy from a quarter of a cent to one cent, and the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill increases the maximum rate of levy from 20c to 50c per head. The current operative rate in the pig industry is 20c per head. The Opposition recognises that these Bills will avoid the need for frequent increases in rates and in fact will allow those increases to occur by regulation. We support the passage of the Bills because we believe that they will allow for a more planned and organised approach to rural research in Australia and will allow a certain permanence to some research programs that are currently being jeopardised by an uncertain future from a financing point of view. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(5.24) —In this cognate debate I propose to refer to the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill. This legislation proposes to amend the 1969 legislation which provided for the establishment of a joint Commonwealth Government-industry research scheme for the chicken meat industry. The research scheme is a result of proposals submitted to the Government at that time by the chicken meat industry through its federal organisation, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, for the introduction of a statutory research scheme along similar lines to those operating for a number of other rural industries. Honourable members will be aware that the research scheme is financed by a levy, as has been referred to by a number of speakers, on meat chickens hatched, with a matching contribution by the Federal Government. The present legislation before the House will increase the maximum levy rate to 1c per chicken hatched. The research scheme is designed to provide a co-ordinated program of research on the scientific, technical and economic problems of the meat chicken industry. Funds raised by the levy and contributed by the Commonwealth Government are made available through the Chicken Meat Research Trust Account and are used for research and other purposes incidental to research as specified in the legislation. A review of rural industry research funds in 1983 highlighted the need to rationalise the existing body of rural industry research legislation, which had developed piecemeal over time, and to place the administration and financial management of rural research funds on a uniform legislative base. In line with these recommendations, the Government has indicated its support for the continued growth of rural industry research in Australia through rationalisation of the existing organisational arrangements. However, to ensure sufficient funds for future research the Government has a stated policy that it will encourage industries to increase their contributions to research to 0.5 per cent of the industry's gross value of production over the next five years, while matching their contributions to the industry level of contributions. This amendment is consistent with those objectives. The industry will have flexibility in future to increase its research contributions over some years as a result of this legislation and consistent with Government policy. In future there will be no need for frequent amendments to the legislation to increase the levy. This can now be done by regulation, thus avoiding any delays. The Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee annual report for 1984-85 shows that expenditure from the Chicken Meat Research Trust Account during the year totalled $527,261. Of this, direct research accounted for $494,833. The research payments supported 20 new and 21 continuing projects. Levy receipts during the year amounted to $250,127 and the Commonwealth contribution to the trust account was $242,796. Research carried out with the aid of this levy and federal funds is very important for the future development of the chicken meat industry. Research is undertaken in a variety of areas covering disease, nutrition, genetics and physiology, management and behaviour, public health, and meat quality, plus other miscellaneous areas including funding for industry seminars and conferences. In 1985-86 approved projects for continuing research included funding for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries up to $15,546 and two projects at the University of Queensland, one proposing to utilise $5,000 and the other one being a major program utilising $22,870. Major projects approved for funding in the 1985-86 financial year in Queensland include a State Department of Primary Industries project to the value of $3,045 and a larger one at the James Cook University in Townsville involving $11,728. Some of these projects have been jointly funded by the Poultry Research Advisory Committee. Funding for total continuing projects for 1985-86 is estimated at $357,913 and, for total new projects, $241,018. The Redlands Poultry Research Unit-part of the State Department of Primary Industries-is centred in my electorate of Bowman. It has contributed in the past to industry research and has received funding from the Chicken Meat Research Trust Account to carry out much of that research. It consistently makes a valuable contribution to maintaining the high standard that exists in the industry in Queensland, and in particular in the Redlands area. The poultry industry is important in Queensland; it is worth some $120m. Many small, independent chicken growers and egg producers have their businesses in the Redlands area of my electorate. Their livelihoods are dependent on keeping up with the latest, most cost-efficient methods which largely result from research in the industry. However, the present structure of the chicken meat industry, the whole of the poultry industry for that matter, is such that research funds may, before long, benefit only a few large companies-the ones that currently dominate the industry. These companies are setting the standard for both price and quality in the industry and it is something that is of significant concern to those smaller people engaged in the industry to whom I have referred. Following several takeovers last year, two companies-Ingham Enterprises Pty Ltd and Amatil Ltd-now have virtual control of the Australian chicken-producing industry. The two companies have controlling interests in almost all Australian producers of chickens, for both eggs and chicken meat. Amatil owns around 26 per cent of the chicken meat market and around 23 per cent of the egg-laying market. The bulk of the rest of the market-it is believed to be well in excess of 50 per cent of the total poultry market-is controlled by Ingham. The figures I have quoted are from a recent article in the Australian Financial Review. With this sort of competition and control, small operators are at the mercy of these large companies. These firms are in a position to control market supplies and prices. Although I have listened today to the remarks of honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly members of the National Party of Australia who spoke in this debate, I have not heard one honourable member raise his voice in protest about that sort of development. Already these companies control the entire Australian market for day-old chickens. In November, after the takeovers, the price of day-old chicks was increased by nearly 30 per cent-almost overnight-from 45c to 60c for each bird. Independent processors are unable to change their end prices in the face of competition from these two companies and this is likely to result in the smaller processors being squeezed out of the market. Naturally, I am concerned that some of the smaller family businesses in my electorate that are geared around the poultry industry may not survive if these two big companies are allowed to continue to dictate prices. The excuse which is often used in other manufacturing industries to justify such a concentration of power is the need to compete with overseas producers. However, because of quarantine restrictions, independent processors cannot import chickens or eggs; thus they must buy from one of the two major suppliers. There is no competition at all for these two big companies. The present ownership situation in the poultry industry has warranted a review by the Prices Surveillance Authority to see what effect, if any, the recent takeovers would have on competition in the industry. I believe that that effect has been quite severe and has already been clearly shown, particularly in instances such as those I have referred to today. The chicken inquiry will cover the supply of day-old chicks intended for broiler production, feed for broiler chicken production, live broiler chickens for processing and processed broiler chickens. It will examine the basis for establishing prices and whether surveillance under the PSA should be exercised over any section of the industry. Unfortunately, the report is not available at this stage. I understand that is expected about the end of the month and I have no doubt that it will make some very interesting reading for those who are interested in the preservation of this industry rather than the control of the industry by the major companies, Amatil and Ingham. I certainly hope that the small, independent chicken growers and processors will truly gain the benefit of the research that is carried out under this legislation rather than, as may well be the case, the large organisations benefiting from the new developments and using them to move smaller competitors out of the market. That is one of the dangers that could arise from the situation that has now developed. I commend the legislation to the House. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to support it. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. Mr Keogh —He didn't get any flowers. Mr IAN CAMERON —No, he did not but I would like to congratulate him all the same. It is my pleasure to support the primary industry legislation which is before the House today. Before I speak on the legislation I would just like to comment on what the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) had to say. He said that he was very concerned about takeovers in the chicken industry. I wonder what the Government thinks about the takeover of a company such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Government does not seem to be terribly concerned about that and about all the Australians who work for that company. The Government seems to be quite happy to let conglomerates come in and take over the Big Australian, yet when it comes to chickens it is a bit concerned. Mr Keogh —You wouldn't be happy if the Liberal Party took over the National Party. Mr IAN CAMERON —I suggest that there is no way in the world that anyone would ever take over the National Party, certainly not the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. That would be the last thing it would be capable of doing. The Breakfast Creek mob, the up the creek mob, or whatever they are, have no hope of ever governing in Queensland. They are the most hopeless lot of people that one could ever imagine. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will address himself to the Bills before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I want you to understand that they are facts the Australian Labor Party is not spending any money on research and it is time that it did. If it did it might get somewhere, but it would have to compete against the National Party of Australia, of course, and it has no hope. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, I am the member for Maranoa and a good member of the National Party. We support this legislation because it is essential that we continue to carry out research into the products that we produce-the barley, the dried vine fruits, the dried tree fruits, the livestock that we export. I will come back to that later. Senator Georges, who is a great Queenslander, wants to stop the export of live sheep. That is how concerned he is about the well-being of Australians. Of course, once this legislation becomes law maximum livestock slaughter levies will be imposed on chicken meat and pig meat. I will come back to those in just a little while. First of all, I would like to cover some of the ramifications of the Government's policies from which these industries are presently suffering. They are finding it very difficult to stay in business at all, let alone do any research. I would be interested to know where the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is. There is not even a Minister in the House. Goodness gracious! The Minister for Primary Industry, who is a member of the gang of seven, is not even at the table. There is no Minister at the table. A Minister has just appeared. Well I never! Here we have a government that cannot even govern the country. It could not even put up with a matter of public importance today. It had to turn off the tap and close down the debate. It is disgusting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not reflect upon debates that have previously been before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Minister for Primary Industry, a member of the gang of seven, is out supporting his colleagues who want a continuing bulge in the $18 billion or $20 billion that we are paying out in social security payments in this country. The farmers of Australia are suffering from all sorts of things under this Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gets up and blames the overseas crisis for all these things. He blames Europe and the United States of America, but most of the problems are here at home and are as a result of this Labor Government's domestic policies. We heard today in the debate on the matter of public importance-what we were able to hear of it before it was cut off-about interest rates. The Westpac Banking Corporation announced today that there would be another increase in interest rates on personal loans-from 19 to 20 per cent. How can farmers continue to operate under these sorts of conditions? Twenty dollars in every $100 that they have to borrow to keep going has to be paid back to a bank. The Mastercard interest rate has gone up from 16.8 to 18 per cent. The interest rate on Bankcard has gone up from 21 to 22.2 per cent. It has gone up 1.2 per cent. It is a shocking state of affairs. In 1985-86 average farm costs were $12 billion, which is an increase of 7 per cent or $800m on last year's costs. The real net value of farm production is down 24 per cent to the second lowest figure in the last 30 years. It is disgraceful. Average farm income is down by 66 per cent. In 1985-86 $6,700 is the average farm income. The Treasurer, who closed down the debate on the matter of public importance today, has not the guts to stand up here and defend his policies. He tried to say in answers in the House today and yesterday that his new tax regime will not affect the farmers-the barley growers, the dried fruit growers and the livestock producers. He had the audacity to say that his new policies will have no effect on these people. I can assure the House that farmers in the electorate of Maranoa are being crippled by this Government. The Treasurer says that it makes no difference how much tax they pay, but these people earn so little that they have to go off the farm to earn some other income. But the Labor Government will tax them for that privilege. These people are destitute, they will have to leave their farms to find jobs, and any extra income they earn will be taxed. That is disgusting. Not only that, but when they come to sell the farm they will have to pay capital gains tax-not that there will be much capital value left in the farm by the time Labor members have finished with us, because land prices have dropped. Mr Hurford —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: There are nine Bills before the House and I cannot see how the honourable member for Maranoa is being relevant on any one of them. Will you ensure that he becomes relevant? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa was addressing some elements of the Bills. I must say that his remarks were widely drawn and I ask him to address himself more to the centrality of the Bills. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will get back to the barley growers, the livestock producers, the chicken producers and the pork producers. Mr Humphreys —What are you producing? Mr IAN CAMERON —I am a grain and beef producer. I am suffering as well as all the other producers from the extra burdens imposed on us by Labor-the high interest rates, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax. Imagine Labor bringing in a tax on the farm worker who has the privilege of living in a cottage and getting free milk and meat. He is to be taxed for that privilege. And Labor members say that they support the workers. Labor members are an absolute disgrace to the workers of this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to address himself to the levies that are included in the Bills. Mr IAN CAMERON —The National Party is the best party in Australia; and we intend introducing a 14-point package when we come to office. We will pass on the full benefits of lower oil prices, abolish fuel prices indexation, remove the sales tax on fuel, restore the freight equalisation- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member, in view of the width of the debate try to address the levies dealt with in the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am getting back to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was going to talk a lot about fuel, but unfortunately this is not broadcast day, so I will save my breath until we come back on air when I will have a lash at Labor members on the subject of fuel. If the Government were to reduce fuel prices by 7c a litre, the sheep meat industry which is dealt with under this legislation would save $11m, the grain industry $59m, the dairy industry $11.5m, and the beef industry $17.6m. These maximum figures are relevant to this legislation because these producers are paying levies on their products in order to carry out research into these industries. I am very pleased that the Government is also putting in another dollar. That is the sort of investment we need from government-dollar for dollar in research. If research is not carried out into these products, we will not be able to compete with the rest of the world. We will not be able to complete against the Europeans who are heavily subsidised by their governments, nor will we be able to compete against the Americans. Under their farm Bill American farmers will be paid $50 billion in the next three years. We have no hope of competing. We work our guts out feeding honourable members opposite, and if we did not do that they would all starve to death. Mr Hand —What about rural subsidies? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would ask the honourable member for Melbourne not to provoke the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will have to ask the Chair to throw those Labor Party members out if they are not quiet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will address his remarks to the Bills. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will get back to barley, which has a 75c maximum. I have been in touch with the barley growers in Maranoa. I telephoned John Obst of the Queensland Graingrowers Association and he told me that Queensland has had one of the biggest crops ever of barley, with some 800,000 tonnes having been produced. Most of it is exported to the Japanese and it keeps people in the cities full of Fourex. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) spends most of his time drinking Fourex, but what Labor members forget is that we farmers work ourselves to death producing some of these products that those people sit back at the weekend and consume without giving us a thought. A large proportion of the barley crop goes to beer, stock and export. It helps the wheat industry and the barley industry in Queensland if those concerned come up with better varieties. Unfortunately, we are stuck with one variety called Grimmet, and we need to extend the disease resistance of this crop. We are also looking at growing barley in the central highlands, and there is a right time to plant. Turning to the pig meat industry, a lot of people are producing pork in this country and production of pork meat has saved a lot of farmers. They have moved into pork production and have done very well. Of course, the animal liberationists are on the loose. Every long-haired research assistant in the country-and the short-haired ones-are now on the animal liberation bandwagon. They have an ear ring in each ear; they should have one in their nose as well so we can tie them down when they get out of control. Some $7.11m has been spent on research in the last six to eight years, and the current levy is 15c. The pork producers and chicken meat producers are being homed in on by the animal libbers, who seem to think that we cannot lock up pigs in a totally disease-free piggery. It is a better bed than most of them sleep in. It is cleaner and more disease-free than the beds that most of us sleep in. That is how the pigs are treated. We are very concerned about the welfare issue in inland Australia and we intend to fight. We will not go down. We will not be told how to run our industries. We have got codes of practice that we abide by. I believe that the pork producers and chicken producers are doing a good job and producing a good clean product for metropolitan consumers, for that is where most of it goes. Most of it goes down the throats of the Labor members opposite. The National Party supporters out in the bush do not see the finished product. Livestock also generates a big income. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation derives most of its income from the slaughter levy, some $13m in 1984-85. The export charges on sheep were $894,000. The livestock industry has participated in shows and promoting our beef throughout the world-in Iran, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Korea. We have markets across the world, and we export 50 per cent of what we produce. It keeps this country afloat. We primary producers are one of the biggest export sectors in Australia and we help to maintain the standard of living of Australia. But what does Senator Georges do? As head of a committee, he issues a report saying that in five years time we will not be able to export live sheep. What a lot of nonsense. What about the people employed in this industry. What about the farmers producing livestock, producing wethers for this market? What is wrong with that? At least we have created a market, we have the product to sell, but you Labor members want to stop us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa should address his remarks to the Chair, rather than to the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am up to chicken meat, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would give me a go. The chicken meat industry is now worth $600m. Honourable members opposite rush out of the supermarket every Friday night to buy their chickens and their Fourex. They never think about the poor primary producers who are suffering to produce these products or about the amount of money we spend on research to see that we produce a good, tender product that suits them. The only subsidy the chicken industry gets is the amount the Federal Government provides, on a dollar for dollar basis with industry, for research. No other subsidy is involved. The industry uses 500,000 tonnes of wheat and has gross value retail sales of $800m. I have very much pleasure in supporting these Bills. I have always been a great supporter of research. I believe that it is one way of staying abreast of our customers. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.52) —It is always a pleasure to come into the chamber early and hear the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) speak. Unfortunately, after the honourable member made a speech on South Africa one day, the Trades and Labour Council in Canberra and a number of other organisations condemned me, confusing my electorate of Eden-Monaro with the honourable member's electorate of Maranoa. I feel that I ought to comment on one or two of his remarks. The honourable member mentioned the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, which made certain statements concerning live sheep exports. The honourable member for Maranoa completely misrepresented that Committee. I advise him that the Committee has accepted that live sheep exports should continue. The honourable member is interested, just as members of the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia throughout Australia are, in trying to associate the Government with what they see as unreasonable animal liberation moves. I remind him again that Senator Georges's Committee, which was convened on the proposal of the Australian Democrats, accepted that live sheep exports should continue. Mr Ian Cameron —That was Senator Georges's personal opinion. Mr SNOW —No, it was the whole Committee's opinion. Previously in this debate the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) referred to interest rates. He completely misrepresented the Government's intentions regarding interest rates. I remind him and the other honourable members opposite that actions have been taken by the Federal Government which, in my opinion, will have the medium term effect of phasing down interest rates. Already a record reduction in the Budget deficit for 1985-86 has brought less competition between the public and private sectors for finance. The reduction was nearly $5 billion over three years. The Government has almost halved the rate of increase of private sector costs through the prices and income accord with the trade union movement, which was endorsed by the National Economic Summit Conference. The accord is helping to prevent even higher rises. A further benefit will flow from the discounting of wages in, probably, the April 1986 national wage case. (Quorum formed) I am sorry that the honourable member for Wannon has not come into the chamber because I wanted to remind him that, when he talks of the Government fostering high interest rates, he should remember that the Government has made moves, including the floating of the dollar, which will reduce the need for money to come in from overseas. Even now, the floating of the dollar has saved the rural sector from export disadvantages to the value of $2.5m. No farmer would have been able to pay his share of the interest on that amount. The Bills before us-although one would not know it, given some of the statements from honourable members-include a wide range of levy amendment Bills, such as the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill. The meat chicken industry is not in a good position. Since my early association with the industry in the 1960s, it has always been in a bad position. However, for some reason, the leading farm organisations, particularly the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales, are not prepared to talk about one of the major reasons for the crisis in the industry's cost-price structure. Agribusiness controls, in many cases, both the cost of inputs and the price given for outputs, or produce. A close analysis shows that the crisis in costs and prices for farmers has not hit agribusiness-in other words, the big business involved in supplying to and buying from farmers. These businesses are recording high and increased levels of profit. Agribusiness has imposed costs and controls on prices in the chicken meat industry. Chicken farmers borrow their money, buy their day-old chicks, feed and even the medication for their chickens from the same companies that buy their products. Agribusiness is getting very cheap labour, land and facilities from farmers in a process which it virtually controls itself. I believe that the Government should look into the increasing control by fewer and fewer companies of our food chain and the destinies of primary producers. The Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill is pertinent to these problems, as research into these matters now would be very appropriate. It would give the rural sector a basis for understanding where a significant part of its problem lies-the monopoly control of food producing inputs and outputs. Elders IXL Ltd, for example, is a company that has made considerable and increased profits from Australian farmers' produce during a time of crisis. It has even gone so far as to encourage live sheep exports from New Zealand in competition with Australia's live sheep exports, sells to farmers a major part of their inputs, such as finance, insurance, stock feed, et cetera and then buys produce back from the farmers to sell to consumers at a considerable profit. Under this sort of system agribusiness could reduce farmers to a peasant status. We need to look hard at this process but, above all, farm organisations, which are there to protect their members, and farmers ought to look at it. We are also dealing with the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. A significant part of this Bill requires the co-operation of the industry in the establishment of levies which help the industry. The policies of these industries are gaining full recognition due to the fact that they have an ear in government through the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the Ministry as a whole, the Cabinet and, of course, the Government's Caucus primary industry rural and provincial affairs committee. It is because we are listening to these people that we are bringing in so many Bills which the Opposition cannot help but support. In Eden-Monaro research into dairy milking techniques has resulted in what is probably the most advanced milking operation in Australia. A local dairy farmer in Bega, Jim Collins, has developed a milking system that allows him to milk over 200 cows in just over an hour. He is still refining his system. I know that Victorians tell us they have the most efficient dairy farmers. I can tell them that we are certainly finding this type of milking system a very efficient method of dairy farm operation. The cows enter a rotating platform automatically. Their number is punched on to a computer, and feed rations, health indicators through temperature readings, milking and even exit from the rotary platform are performed automatically by a computer. This operation in Bega typifies the efficiency of the Australian dairy industry. It is said to be one of the most efficient in the world. I must point out, as the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has pointed out following his recent return from Europe, that we are competing with countries with farmers who in some cases have perhaps only five or six head of cattle. Naturally such countries are tempted to leave these people on their farms rather than have them roam the streets of Paris on unemployment relief. Nevertheless these countries are realising that their taxpayers are now subsidising primary production to the extent that their own economic development is suffering. The same is happening in the United States. I congratulate the Minister for Trade in pointing out to these countries in a very clear way on his recent visit to Europe the fact that they need to look at their subsidies, at what is happening in their own economies, and particularly at the fact that Australia has the most efficient primary producers in the world. I am pleased to support these Bills. They are further evidence of co-operation between the Government and the producers of Australia. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(6.04) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill, the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill, the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill, the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill. It is fortunate that the Bills cover a wider area than barley research and dried fruits because the Northern Territory produces neither. However, we have a thriving livestock export trade and a considerable beef industry. I point out that the livestock export trade is growing. Regardless of the opinion of some honourable members that there should be no livestock exports, nonetheless the fact is that there is a market and if we do not take it somebody else will. The reasons for the existence of that market relate to the opinions and views of the people who are the consumers in those markets. They want to see the slaughtering facilities through which the livestock will be put. The market is there and the Northern Territory is in a prime position to avail itself of the Asiatic livestock export market. We have received scant assistance from the Federal Government in relation to the expansion of slaughter and retail facilities in Asian countries. This is an operation that the Northern Territory has had to undertake in consultation with some of the Asian countries concerned in order to establish abattoirs or slaughter houses and to help assist retail butcher shops by the provision of personnel and advice. I notice that the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill is also before the House. I understand that my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will not be making a small contribution in relation to this Bill but will speak on legislation that will be before the House later. I thought that perhaps, given his particular experiences, he would be able to make a valuable contribution to the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill debate. The Northern Territory has a small chicken meat industry and a relatively small pig slaughter industry. There is a very small dairy industry in the Northern Territory but it is capable of expansion. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) stated that these new levy rates will allow the livestock and meat industry increased flexibility to increase its research contributions. I am glad that the Minister says he is prepared to allow for greater flexibility within the industry in this area because when it comes to other services that this Government provides to the industry, it is clear that it intends to allow the industry anything but flexibility. Indeed, the Minister intends to be able to hold the industry to ransom. I am speaking, of course, about the announcement from the same Minister that in future meat export inspection services will be provided when, and if, he thinks fit. This announcement, which has very grave implications for the livestock industry and could render futile all the research in the world in that industry, follows the decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia that such inspection services must be provided upon request and that the Minister does not have the right to withhold that service. Quite simply, the Minister acted outside his discretionary powers in refusing to allow Commonwealth meat inspectors to cross picket lines at Mudginberri and he is now changing the rules to allow him again to take covert action in support of militant unionism in the future. The funds it is hoped will be collected under this legislation can only suffer as a result. I turn now to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. It is appropriate to note that the problems that have beset the Mudginberri proprietors Jay and Joy Pendarvis are to do with the refusal of this Minister to permit a common inspection service and a common levy to apply to export meat inspections at that abattoir. While this Government is happy to purport to co-operate with the industry on a minor matter such as an adjustment in research levy rates, it has demonstrated, in the Mudginberri case-it will undoubtedly demonstrate again-that it is totally unwilling to co-operate with the industry on a matter as vital as export inspection services. If the Minister is to use his new discretionary powers over export meat inspections in the same way as he did at Mudginberri, there will be no levies to be collected. The illegal picket lines alone at Mudginberri were not effective in preventing Jay Pendarvis and his employees from carrying on their business and so paying their levies. It took the underhand and, as the Full Bench of the Federal Court found, the illegal actions of the Minister to achieve that end. It is all very well for the Minister to bring in legislation for adjustments to export levies; but in a matter vital to the industry-export clearances-he is setting himself up and holding the entire industry to ransom when it suits him and his mates in the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and so is strangling any beneficial effect this legislation may have. The Minister in his new found spirit of co-operation might like to co-operate in other ways with the industry. In particular, he might like to facilitate the clearance of some 450 tonnes of meat, which is worth over half a million dollars and is earmarked for export, that is still sitting in cold storage awaiting the Minister's nod and so pick up a fair bit of money for research. That meat is gradually being sold at a substantial loss into the domestic market. Already 135 tonnes have been sold into the domestic market with the resultant loss of income and future contracts for the operators. That meat cost $2.30 a kilogram to produce and, at best, the operators are getting $1.56 on the domestic market and we are losing overseas markets as a result. Even now the Minister could authorise these inspections for export by the taking of core samples and flesh testing, but he refuses to do so. He will argue that any export clearance now could threaten Australia's reputation, but that is just so much twaddle and bunkum. Why would that method be any less safe-particularly when we consider that the meat has been inspected- Mr Chynoweth —What about the- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Dunkley is interjecting when he is out of his seat. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your protection. The meat has been inspected by Northern Territory meat inspectors who were previously appointed by the Commonwealth. That is the hypocrisy of the Minister's stand. That is how ridiculous this business has become. This legislation will be ineffective because the entire industry is under threat from the continuing harassment of the meat workers union. At Mudginberri, at Wagga Wagga and at other abattoirs in New South Wales and Victoria the union has threatened to put its own members out of work rather than admit that its awards are both outdated and economically crippling to the industry. In this they have had the under-the-counter support of this Minister, who has had the temerity in introducing this Bill to talk about agreeing to industry requests for adjustment of levy rates. It is interesting, too, that in his speech on this Bill the Minister spoke of avoiding the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. Perhaps he would like to apply the same sensitivity and forward thinking to his powers over export meat inspection services. He wishes to avoid the need to amend this legislation constantly, but has served notice that he wants to rule by whim on the issue of export meat inspections. The Minister has failed to permit exports to go ahead despite the fact that Northern Territory meat inspectors, who inspected the meat for export, worked at a condemnation rate in excess of that of the Commonwealth inspectors when they-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he is straying a little away from the structure of the debate. I ask him to remember that. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that reminder. It just occurred to me that I was probably a lot closer to the thrust of the debate than some earlier speakers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope that was not a reflection on the Chair. Mr EVERINGHAM —I certainly would not want to reflect on your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. All research carried out in the livestock industry will be futile because this epidemic of union militancy could spread. Mudginberri's requests for inspections were denied out of hand and the Minister, quite incorrectly, said that there was no duty imposed on him to provide export inspection services to any registered exporter. Now Jay and Joy Pendarvis at Mudginberri will pay a million dollar penalty-and probably the levies as well. I hope that if, for some reason, they do not recover damages for this loss from the AMIEU, they will take action against the Commonwealth Government. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(6.13) —I rise to speak in this cognate debate, and I wish to refer particularly to two Bills-the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1986 and the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill. These two Bills-and, of course, the whole range of the Bills before the House-are a clear indication that the agricultural industries are prepared to meet the challenge of improving their productivity through research. The Bills are positive, and I believe they reflect a commendable approach by this Government and by the former Government in support of applied research in our agricultural industries. The first Bill I wish to refer to is the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill, which will increase the maximum research levy rate to 75 cents per tonne. The operative rate within this maximum is to be set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, which represents the barley growers of Australia. The levy is to be collected at the industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. This Bill is in line with earlier announcements which were aimed at encouraging rural industries to raise the level of their research contributions to 0.5 per cent of their gross value of product within five years, with matching Federal Government expenditure on a dollar for dollar basis. I believe that this Bill will give the industry considerable flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years-which would be consistent with this Parliament's policy over a number of years. This Bill meets a request from the industry that its passage ensures that there is no delay in these funds becoming available. We are fully aware that low commodity prices, aggressive trading practices of our competitors and the corruption of many world markets are significant factors in the current situation affecting our gain industries. These factors are basically out of the control of farmers and of governments. Unfortunately, world prices of coarse grains this year are expected to be some 15 per cent below last year's prices, mainly due, of course, to high production and increases in surpluses throughout the world. Unfortunately, production is expected to increase but, also unfortunately, we will see only a slight increase in trade. I think I should mention that the last wheat marketing arrangements that went through this Parliament that introduced a permit system into the legislation are also contributing to the difficulties we are having now in Australia in relation to sales and in relation to price. Of course, these various factors that I have mentioned have produced for grain growers and the community a crisis of a magnitude worse than any that has been experienced in the history of settlement. This is particularly so in the grain growing areas of my electorate of Mallee, and in major areas in Western Australia. Obviously, domestic prices will follow low exports returns, particularly if we see any strengthening of the Australian dollar. As regards gross value for barley, recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures show that we might see a fall from $144 a tonne, the price in 1985-86, to around $127 a tonne in 1986-87 as exchange rate effects become more evident and, of course, as we see the effects of the United States farm Bill. Until now, increased productivity and improved farming techniques have enabled Australian primary producers to keep ahead of our competitors and to provide to the Australian population a source of cheap and high quality products. However, increased productivity, in my view, will no longer ensure the viability of agriculture in the circumstances we are experiencing, and governments throughout Australia must act now with real understanding to restore equity in agricultural policies. This becomes very evident when we realise that, while prices are dropping, the average price of farm inputs has increased by 41 per cent over the same two-year period. To offset the pressure and to maintain farm profits over this period, farmers would have had to improve the overall productivity of their farms to a degree that is simply not realistic and, in fact, is impossible to achieve. Farmers in my electorate have experienced almost drought conditions in three out of the last four seasons. The combined effects of declining terms of trade and poor seasons have resulted in declining farm profits and, for many, an increase in farm borrowing that has been entirely out of their control. We need more than sympathy from the Government. Whilst these Bills will assist in our research programs, they will have very limited impact upon the problems we are experiencing. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), in his speech just a few moments ago, suggest that the Government has a very good interest rates policy. I would like him to go out into the wider community and tell that to the people in the productive sector, whether it be small business or the agricultural sector, and explain how good the Government's interest rate policy is. It has increased our rural debt to levels never before experienced and in many cases people simply will not come out of that position. I turn to the Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill, under which we will see maximum research levy rates increase to $5 per tonne of dried vine fruits and to $30 per tonne of dried tree fruits. Once again, the operative rate within this maximum is to be set by regulation on the recommendation of the Dried Fruits Research Committee. We will see established a maximum rate of industry contribution to dried fruits industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP at current prices. As with the barley Bill, this will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contribution over some years, consistent with the policy now being introduced. This will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. I also point out that last year the dried fruits industry sought and was granted an operative rate increase to $1.50 per tonne of dried fruit, $7.50 per tonne of dried plums and $5 per tonne of other dried tree fruits. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.14 per cent of its gross domestic product. I believe that the industry has shown a positive approach in its attitude to applied research and, of course, these Bills are aimed at increasing that research and ultimately the profitability of producers. Australian production of dried vine fruit in 1986, at the present being picked and dried, is forecast to be slightly higher than that of 1985. Prices have been better than expected over the last few months simply because of the reduced production of sultanas and raisins in the United States of America and Turkey. In the United States this has been brought about by a diversion program and in Turkey the reduced production is as a result of bad weather. This has ensured that we in Australia have been able to place some uncommitted stocks as a result of the difficulties in other countries. The situation now is that our stocks in Australia are at manageable levels and probably they will stay that way in 1986. We can, therefore, expect that dried fruit prices are reasonably firm. I would be the first to acknowledge that in the dried fruits industry the devaluation of our dollar has helped considerably. I believe that announced government policies in this industry, particularly the last marketing arrangements put through this Parliament for the dried fruits industry, have not assisted the industry to any large degree. That is mainly in two areas. The first area is that there have been no reduction restrictions placed on this industry and the second area is that these arrangements will almost certainly ensure that over a period domestic prices fall to levels more in line with export prices. I believe this is most unfair on an industry which over a number of years has set realistic domestic prices, prices which have seen sales increase by up to 5 per cent a year and which also provide a product to the domestic market of a high quality. In March 1985 a vine pull scheme was announced for this industry to try to correct some of the surplus problems in the grape industry, particularly in relation to multi-purpose grapes. Quite significant numbers of growers are now coming forward and participating in the vine pull scheme and, of course, they can receive up to $50,000 a year. I re-emphasise that, as we have a scheme which has no real emphasis on production control and which gives no real encouragement towards it, I believe that the industry is probably treading water at present. In fact, it seems quite a paradox to me that we have placed a sales tax on the vine industry simply to pay dried fruit growers and some wine growers to pull out their form of production in a vine pull scheme. I assume that as the vine pull scheme gets under way, this Government will be increasing the level of sales tax on wine to pay for it. These Bills, of course, are closely related to the issue of plant varietal rights, which is extremely important to research in our agricultural industries. I believe that the issue of plant varietal rights is a priority of our horticultural industries. It is a priority policy of the National Farmers Federation and to my knowledge is a priority issue with most commodity grower organisations in Australia. I believe it is an issue of such importance that in debating this legislation it is most appropriate to raise this issue in some more detail. I believe that the enactment of appropriate PVR legislation will benefit Australian primary producers in two ways. Firstly, it will provide ready access to the wide range of new crop varieties currently protected and being grown in other countries but unavailable here for commercial use. That is mainly due to a lack of protective legislation. Secondly, as has happened in all other countries, it will greatly stimulate plant breeding, particularly by our commercial firms. It will provide increased access to overseas varieties. This is extremely essential in many of these research programs. Many special cases have been known where overseas originators of new superior varieties of such products as grapes, apples, beans, nectarines and other fruits that are grown in areas producing dried vine fruits and dried tree fruits, as well as a wide range of ornamentals, have refused to release them for commercial use in Australia because they could not be protected under PVR legislation. As examples of the extent to which new overseas protected varieties could become available here after the enactment of appropriate legislation-subject, of course, to their suitability to Australian conditions and any plant quarantine restrictions-it is to be noted that to the end of 1980 the United States of America has granted protection to 774 varieties of 53 different seed propagated crops. In the United Kingdom, to the end of 1978-a long time ago now-similar protection had already been granted to 878 varieties, comprising 424 varieties of agricultural crops and 395 decoratives, while there were 58 varieties propagated in the fruit area. Most of the major Australian seed companies now employ plant breeders but in general their breeding programs have been confined to the development of hybrids in maize, sorghum, sunflowers, sweetcorn and forages, where in all cases there is in-built production due to the specific identity and ownership of the in-bred parental lines used to produce the hybrids. That is why legislation that is basically related to the applied research areas of agricultural production is so important in relation to the PVR issue. Very little breeding work has been done by commercial firms with open pollenated crops such as cereals, oil seeds other than sunflowers, lucerne, clovers, most vegetables and, of course, most horticultural crops where in the absence of plant varietal rights, control of the new varieties is lost immediately they are sold on the open market. The reason for this lack of commercial interest in breeding open pollenated crops is obvious from a recent statement by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture that a plant breeder with all the necessary equipment and supporting staff costs approximately $100,000 per annum to maintain, with new varieties taking a minimum of five years and sometimes up to 10 years to develop to the stage of commercial release. The experience of Australian commercial seed firms employing plant breeders and ancillary staff fully supports this departmental estimate. There are enormous consumer benefits in a PVR scheme. In addition to benefiting primary producers by stimulating plant breeding and by providing ready access to many new and superior overseas varieties of various crops, PVR legislation would also benefit consumers by providing a much wider range of high quality produce, particularly fruit and vegetables in both the fruit and processed market. The Opposition supports these Bills, but I wish to emphasise that the new research councils that are being set up must not become new bureaucracies. They should contain members who are closely involved at the cliff base of the industry. I emphasise the significance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation centre at Merbein near Mildura in my electorate where perhaps the most significant research on grape varieties has been carried out over recent years to the benefit of the grape industry but more significantly to allow diversity to take place in our horticultural regions. These research councils must remain relevant and must have close co-operation and consultation with the industry if they are going to be effective. I also suggest that the research programs that take place should not just confine themselves to productivity within the various industries but should also become more directly involved with marketing and promotion work within those industries. That seems to me to be of as much, if not more significance, at present. I raise one final issue. It is interesting to note that in recent days the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), as one of the gang of seven, has complained to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the possible withdrawal of funds. The Minister for Primary Industry, of course, would be well aware of what he is doing because he has already seen withdrawn by the Hawke Government from his portfolio some $442m of support to rural industry, to the extent that agriculture now has the lowest level of support ever. Within almost all our marketing arrangements the Government has introduced legislation that provides little risk to government. It has introduced high control by government and, ultimately, its aim is to bring about a cheap food policy in the domestic market. The Minister obviously knows that macroeconomics is affecting rural areas. High interest rates, domestic costs, the assets test, capital gains and off-farm income are all affecting the future of agriculture in this country. While these research Bills are extremely important, it must be pointed out to this Government that unless it does something in the major economic areas the real problems in agriculture will not correct themselves. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(6.31) —The legislation before the House provides for research levies and export charges covering important primary industries; in particular, the livestock, chicken, pig and dairy industries. In the present economic climate the proposals are of very great significance. Despite the fall in returns to farmers and the difficulties confronting primary industry generally, farmers are dedicated to the cause of more efficiency and greater recognition of scientific development. We on this side of the House regard the legislation covering a wide spectrum of research and levies for export charges as absolutely vital to primary industry. We take issue with the level of charges because it must be remembered that in practically every instance there is a contribution from the producer in the industry concerned. In most instances, the Government determines its proportion of contribution after discussions with the industry concerned. There is no doubt that at present primary industry is the most hard-pressed sector of all our enterprises. For example, let us compare the ability of primary industry to make a contribution with-in another field-government subvention to support research for industry, with companies such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd drawing from the taxation pool amounts in the range of millions of dollars. I believe that that is something at which the Government should take a second look. Major industries such as BHP are in a position to take a greater responsibility for research in the present state of the economy whereas rural industries are not in a position to carry the burden to the extent that is really necessary. There is a very strong case for the Government to reassess and reconsider in the period covered by this legislation the actual contributions made by government and the requirement for charges on the industries concerned. In the short time available I do not want to dwell on specifics. Rather, I want to refer to some of the general principles underlying this matter because there is no doubt that the ultimate survival of many sectors of primary industry will depend heavily on the ability of scientists and the expertise that goes down to the grass roots level of implementation of scientific research and of new and innovative methods to assist primary industry and, in so doing, to help it economically. It is not just a matter of material gains. Most farmers have an aspiration to produce high quality goods and to see that their livestock is in the best possible state of health, that their crops are as free as possible from disease and, whenever they can, that expertise is applied to gain efficiency so that they can excel in their standards. Earlier this week, a television program showing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) visiting three farms included an image of the reaction of farm families. The wife of one farmer being interviewed said to the Prime Minister: `We do not really believe that we exclusively own this land. We believe that we are here to care for it for the future and pass it on in a better condition'. These feelings and aspirations of country people are not really understood by the Government in this day and age. It does not understand the input necessary to maintain standards so that Australian agriculture and productivity keep pace with the standards attained in other countries. The Government looks upon the farmer, for some reason which I do not understand and which many Australians cannot believe is a reflection of government attitudes, as wealthy, as members of the ruling class-the landed gentry, as Government members sometimes say. Of course, this is far from the truth and reality. In dealing with legislation such as that before us tonight, these aspects become dominant in one's consideration of the import of the legislation. Reference was made earlier this afternoon to the problems facing the poultry industry. I reiterate that that is a very serious matter that the broiler industry is beset by take-overs by a couple of big organisations. Certainly, those organisations or public companies may have the capacity to maintain standards. The difficulty for the poultry industry is that until quite recently there was no chance of importing either live birds or eggs because of disease and quarantine requirements. Yet unless that can be done, there is the very real risk that it will not be possible to maintain production standards and introduce new strains into the poultry industry. I commend the Minister for making the decision only a few weeks ago that will open the way for a resolution of this very important matter. If we are able to deal with the problem effectively and efficiently and give producers an opportunity to maintain their input into the poultry industry, it will be very important for the future of that industry in this country. The inquiry into cost structures by the Prices Surveillance Authority is also important. Not only the poultry industry but practically every other primary industry is in need of special consideration at this time for a variety of reasons. Mr Slipper —What about fuel prices? Mr IAN ROBINSON —Of course, fuel prices are another issue which is pertinent and which was well and truly covered today by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). When he raised this issue the Government ran away from it. But this is getting away from the matter before the House and the provisions flowing from the Bills that we are considering. However, the relationship to costs is very much part of the consideration that is before us. It is in that respect that I want to conclude by saying that, unless there is a recognition of the difficulties facing primary industry at all levels, primary industry will not survive the difficulties that lie ahead. Cost savings are absolutely essential and will be part and parcel of the consequence of the passing of this legislation and the implementation of research and related matters. Of course, this leads very directly to the maintenance of jobs in country areas in Australia. Unless we are able to sustain our primary industries at a reasonable level, employment will fall in the already hard-pressed non-urban areas of Australia. In the far-flung areas opportunities for employment are not great by any manner of means. The big issue in this House from time to time is employment. I hope the Government will recognise that employment is very much part of the primary industry scene, both directly and indirectly. For every successful enterprise in primary industry there is surrounding it a service section of the community supplying goods and services and obtaining some economic input from primary industry which provides the very fabric for job security in rural Australia. So it is very much part of what we are considering in this debate this evening. I conclude by saying that in each of the industries, particularly the ones to which I have referred-the dairying industry, the livestock industry, the pig industry and the poultry industry-there is a very great need for continuation of the research work currently going on. There is a very great need to expand that work and to ensure that each industry gets a fair and equitable share of funding so that the very best expertise can be maintained in research work for primary industry in Australia. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(6.42) —These primary industry Bills are brought into the House against a background of rural crisis, of rural people in real trouble. In Labor's rural policy speech, delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the 1984 Federal election, the Prime Minister said that: . . . special needs of country people will have a high priority . . . I am pleased to see these Bills brought into the House. I hope they are an indication that the Government will now try to take into consideration the problems of country Australia. Labor in government has been a disaster for rural Australians. The Treasurer of Australia (Mr Keating) accused the farmers of being tax cheats. The Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, said that farmers were whingers and were panicking over interest rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I remind the honourable member, as I have reminded other members, that he must keep strictly to the terms of the Bills. Mr SLIPPER —I thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition has indicated its support for the thrust of these Bills which complement the rural industries research legislation approved by Parliament in September. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill has been on the table since last year and the remaining six Bills were brought into Parliament last week. There is provision in these Bills for increases to the maximum rate of levy on produce for research activities, broadly to a level of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production. Mr Braithwaite —It does not help the costs that the farmers are facing, though. Mr SLIPPER —Unfortunately, it does not. But we hope that these Bills will indicate a new attitude, perhaps a new year's resolution on the part of the Australian Labor Party. The operative rates of levy are mostly between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent of GVP. Those rates are not-I stress not-automatically raised by these Bills. The Bills provide for increases in the levy as required, to be set by regulation in consultation with the various industries. I hope and I request that there will be genuine consultation with the producers of Australia. Far too often, this Labor Government has brought legislation into this House when there has not been proper and appropriate consultation with those people involved in the industry. Levy payments up to the operative rate will be matched by the Commonwealth. This is a very positive step in encouraging research in these areas. However, it is unfortunate that these Bills have come before the House without some industry bodies having been advised that they would be debated today. I do not know whether that is a flow-on from the rural protests and whether the Government might have been frightened of the reaction it would receive once these Bills were announced: I do not know about that. Mr Braithwaite —They would not make a decision on the oil price last Friday for that reason. Mr SLIPPER —The Government was not prepared to do that, as the honourable member for Dawson points out. It will probably cheat the taxpayers, the farmers, and the small business people of Australia. But, notwithstanding the Government's actions and poor record in rural matters, the National Party of Australia will support these Bills. Australian primary industries have been innovative. They have been readily able to use new technology to improve their performance. What the industries need badly is a sympathetic approach by government. They need a government prepared to consider and not add to the difficulties already being experienced by rural Australia. We are industry leaders in so many areas. It is unfortunate that certain overseas countries have seen fit to subsidise their farmers to the extent that some of our producers are finding it difficult to compete. Mr Braithwaite —They have corrupted the market for sugar and wheat. Mr SLIPPER —They have indeed. It took the Western Australian election for Labor to discover rural Australia. We all witnessed the cynical regional political pressures of Premier Burke in securing an $11m fertiliser subsidy for Western Australian farmers. The handout backfired. But what has the farming sector to do to get recognition and help from the Hawke Labor Government? Small businessmen and farmers are not fools. Despite Prime Minister Hawke's and Premier Burke's attempted bribery, Western Australian farmers still voted against them and the National Party picked up five extra seats. Mr Braithwaite —How many? Mr SLIPPER —We picked up five extra seats, making a total of 10. That gives the National Party throughout Australia the largest representation ever in the parliaments of this country. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry were too scared to address the major rally of up to 15,000 farmers outside this Parliament last Friday. Furthermore, it has been indicated that the Labor Party will probably not pass on the full 7c per litre fuel price drop to which the farmers and other people in Australia are entitled. Unfortunately, the Government has chopped the time available for this debate and it has been necessary for speakers to reduce the amount of time that they are able to address the Parliament. I am sorry it has not been possible for me to canvass other issues vitally affecting the rural sector. It is an important sector; it is a very productive sector; it is a sector going through very difficult times. The National Party and the Opposition generally have-I reiterate-agreed to support these Bills. We are pleased with and wholeheartedly accept the Minister's statement last week that we, the Opposition, the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, are taking a responsible approach in these crucial primary industry matters. We call upon the Minister and we call upon the Government to respond in a similar vein. The farmers of Australia have sent a clear message to Canberra. The Government must react positively now before it is too late. The people of Australia, both urban and rural, demand it. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.49) —in reply-I apologise to the House for not having been here throughout the debate, but my departmental officials and my office have been monitoring the debate. We are discussing cognately several primary industry Bills which refer to increases in research levies and which reflect the overall approach that we are taking to research for these vital industries. Of course, what the Government has done, by moving to 0.5 per cent of gross value of production in matching dollar for dollar, is to give the potential to these industries for vastly increased research funding. In looking at my budget estimates, it is quite obvious that a lot more money will go into research for these industries. We have also totally revamped the research administration for these industries by setting up a totally new structure, hopefully to get these industries to focus on all aspects of production right through to marketing. It is a new approach and one that I endorse strongly. It is Government policy and we look forward to the results with great interest. I thank all those honourable members who made constructive comments. It seems now that when we are dealing with very simple matters-all these Bills involve increases in charges-honourable members take the opportunity to discuss the industries very widely, including the general nature of the problems that farm industries presently have. Inevitably this means that so many issues are raised that there is not way I as Minister can sum up. I was disappointed to hear some of the things said by honourable members opposite inasmuch as some of the issues being run are the same old hoary myths. I instance just one: Even after I made direct comments this week on this matter in the House, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) suggested that the Forward Estimates for the Department for Primary Industry indicated another cut in its expenditure. I point out again that in the previous year's estimates there was an allowance for $100m which was a one-off payment to the wheat industry, and that is why the Forward Estimates indicate a negative sum this year. What they in fact indicate is quite an increase. These matters will all come out as the Budget goes forward. Mr Porter —When is a cut not a cut? Mr KERIN —It is simply an accounting item because it was the industry's own money being returned. We were holding $100m of the wheat industry's money, and because it was put out it had to go down on my estimates as an appropriation. It is quite nonsensical; it is just a book entry. There is no cut indicated. With the recent decision we took on diammonium phosphate and monoammonium, and all fertilisers, effectively, the additional amount there will be attributed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). So not all matters affecting the Department of Primary Industry go onto my Budget estimates. In terms of the substantive matters raised by honourable members, I will go through the Hansard and then write to them because I think it is important that when matters are raised in this House about these industries we all serve in whatever capacity possible. Because of my belief that there should not be a lot of politics in primary industry, I believe it is appropriate that I do write to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (Mr Kerin) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(6.55) —At this third reading stage of the Meat Chicken Levy Amendment Bill I seek from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) an indication, as this was a cognate Bill, of the state of play of the plant variety rights research Bill. Where does it currently sit in relation to the levy and how long will we have to wait for a report on the likely introduction of plant variety rights into the horticultural and agricultural industries of Australia? Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.56) —in reply-The report the Government is having prepared by Professor Lazenby should be available to us either by the end of this month or in early March. The Government will then consider it. I canvassed this matter at the recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council to see whether there had been any shifts in opinion as a result of deliberations by State political parties. It seemed that some previous objections are not now being raised. By and large the Government will take a decision. The honourable member will understand that the report by Professor Lazenby will address very much the purely agricultural issues connected with plant variety rights. We have yet to take a decision as to the stage at which that report will be made public, but I think it will provide a lot of illumination for the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 August 1985, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 10. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(7.00) —Both the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill deal with the export of Australian apples and pears. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill will amend the Apple and Pear Corporation Act of 1973 to allow the Corporation in future to issue export licences and to charge a licence administration fee. Under the existing legislation the licences are issued by the Minister on the recommendation of the Corporation. Under the proposed changes, the Corporation will be solely responsible for determining the issue of licences. The Bill gives the Corporation the power to grant licences and specify the circumstances under which licences can be revoked. In addition, the Bill provides for the periodic review by the Corporation of the export performance of those persons granted licences. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech, has indicated that the Corporation will be implementing a policy of restricting the number of export licence holders. While the Opposition accepts the view that a reduction in the number of export licence holders may act to improve the returns to growers of apple and pears, we trust that this policy will take into consideration the effects of reducing the number of licence holders on the future livelihood of those licence holders who may lose their licences. Some concern has been expressed by the industry organisations that a rapid introduction of the policy may cause severe problems for many successful exporters of Victorian pears. Victoria currently provides nearly 50 per cent of Australia's pears for export and has 17 exporters. If the policy of restricting the number of licence holders is introduced quickly and involves a substantially reduced number of licences being available for the export of Victorian pears, there may be quite severe adjustment problems for many of the current export licence holders. The Minister should assure this House that the Apple and Pear Corporation will take account of the concerns of both the growers and the exporters in relation to the introduction of the policy of restricting the number of licence holders from the beginning of the next licensing period, which is due to start on 20 January 1987. The only fair and just course is for the reduction in the number of licences to occur gradually over a period of three to four years. This process should take place on the basis of the export performance of the licence holders. There can be no justification for suddenly revoking the licences of many successful exporters merely to instantly achieve what is considered by the current Corporation to be an optimum number of licence holders. Failing a satisfactory assurance being given by the Minister in this regard, the Opposition may need to take action in the Senate to ensure that a gradual reduction in the number of licences occurs. The Corporation Amendment Bill also requires the Corporation to undertake corporate planning. This planning is consistent with the requirements placed by the Government on other primary industry statutory marketing authorities, namely, the production of five-year corporate plans, annual operational plans and annual reports. The Opposition supports these measures which are designed to improve the long term performance of the marketing authorities. Indeed, the production of five-year plans will help to overcome problems which often occur with changes in the membership of bodies such as the Corporation, namely, the often quite marked changes in policy direction. I turn now to the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill. This Bill will extend government underwriting of the export price of apples and pears for a further five years. The underwriting scheme for apples and pears began in 1981 with the introduction by the former Liberal-National Party Government of the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act. The scheme was introduced following the Industry Assistance Commission's 1980 report on apples and pears. The aim of the arrangements was to give the apple and pear industries security against sharp and rapid declines in export returns without distorting the underlying trends in market prices. The current scheme operates with an underwritten price of 95 per cent of the average export return for the preceding four export seasons. This applies to apples and pears separately. The Bill will modify these arrangements in that underwriting will apply separately to forward sales, that is fruit sold prior to shipment, and `at risk' sales, that is fruit shipped before sale. In addition, the level of underwriting will be reduced from 95 per cent to 85 per cent of the average return. However, as I understand it, the average return is now to be determined from the best three of the preceding four seasons. Of course, this will lessen the effect of the impact of one bad price year on the operation of the scheme in succeeding low price years. The apple and pear industries have undergone a long period of adjustment and the continuation of an underwriting scheme which provides some security against rapid declines in export returns, while not masking the trends in the market, is necessary to allow industry adjustment to respond to the market-place without causing undue hardship to the growers involved. Exports of apples and pears are estimated to be worth of the order of $61m in 1985-86. The export of fresh apples is forecast to increase by 2,000 tonnes this year to a level of 30,000 tonnes, which is equal to the quantity of anticipated pear exports. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, in forecasting these figures, has pointed to the uncertainty surrounding the level of exports of Australian apples and pears this year. This uncertainty is a reflection of the nature of the export market for apples and pears and highlights the need for the existence of an appropriate and sensible underwriting scheme to offer some protection to growers from sharp downturns in prices which may be seasonal rather than a long term trend. This guarantee of price support is even more essential under the present economic climate in Australia of high interest rates and input costs. Growers simply could not survive a sudden sharp drop in prices under the current economic regime being maintained by the Government, without the underwriting scheme. This Government has created conditions which have resulted in our export industries battling with record real interest rates-which are up again today for the smaller borrowers-and high fuel costs as the world prices are falling. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, mounts a very strong campaign on behalf of fuel users generally, particularly these farmers who are unable to compete on world markets when they have interest rates at current levels and fuel costs which are rapidly becoming among the dearest, particularly diesel costs, in the Western world. Our export industries are battling with an inflation rate twice that of our competitors, the loss of $442m from rural industries through successive Labor Budgets since 1983 and an inflexible wages policy. Of course, all these factors put pressure upon the industry and it is in no position to survive a sudden sharp drop in prices in these circumstances. Therefore, more than ever this underwriting scheme is essential for their viability. Australia has a record overseas debt of $80 billion-or it is going towards that figure-which represents a doubling in the last two years. With an expected trade deficit this year of between $13 billion and $14 billion this Government cannot go on plundering the farm and small business sectors. The Opposition is pleased that the Government has decided to continue the underwriting scheme for a further five years. The Opposition will ensure the progress of both the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill and the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Bill, but I repeat that we would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that there will be a phasing-in of any reduction in the number of export licence holders to safeguard any sudden impact upon those who may be the victims of the so-called rationalisation of licences by the Corporation. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(7.09) —Madam Speaker, as this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since you have been elevated to the position of Speaker of the House, I extend to you my personal congratulations. I wish to take just a few minutes this evening to comment on the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill as they are two important Bills. Both the apple and pear industries are important industries within my electorate. Indeed in the district of Orange which is an important part of my electorate I understand that the total apple crop represents about one-eighth or 12.5 per cent of the total apple crop in Australia. It is a matter that is often overlooked. From comments made by honourable members opposite, people assume that Tasmania is the premium apple growing State but certainly important districts such as my own in Orange make a very important contribution to apple production in Australia. People in Orange recently experienced a very devastating hailstorm which had a big impact on this year's crop and it is likely dramatically to affect the crop in subsequent years. On 22 January this year a severe hailstorm producing hail pellets often as large as cricket balls completely devastated the whole district. Those who attended a meeting a few days later were asked to give some sort of estimate as to the levels of damage they suffered as a result of this terrible natural disaster. Some 75 people who responded to the questionnaire at that meeting were asked what their indebtedness was then and what their likely indebtedness would be in 12 months time. It was estimated from the 75 responses that their indebtedness then was about $11.5m but that in 12 months time it was likely to increase by about 28 per cent-to $14,750,000 or an average of $153,000 per orchardist. Another survey that was conducted at the meeting suggested that something of the order of 5,500 acres would be damaged to the extent of 75 per cent. In terms of total damage to the crop, it is estimated that the district will suffer losses in the order of $10m. So in terms of the regional economy of Orange the hailstorm will have a big impact. Fortunately the New South Wales Government responded very quickly and adequately. The New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Mr Jack Hallam, visited Orange a few days after the hailstorm. He came back from a meeting of orchardists held on 30 January with the news that he had held a meeting with the Premier, Mr Wran, and the State Treasurer, Mr Booth, who had both agreed that the standing relief scheme that provided relief of up to $20,000 would be increased to a maximum of $40,000. This news was certainly greeted by the growers with some sort of enthusiasm because many would have been in a very precarious position had it not been for this assistance. I make those points in the context of these Bills simply to emphasise that natural disasters can have a devastating effect on this area of horticulture-an aspect of horticulture that is very significant in my own district. I am pleased that the Opposition will be supporting these Bills-if not full support, fairly qualified support. They are important Bills and, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) suggested, they carry on from a scheme that was introduced by the previous Government. The Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Amendment Bill extends export underwriting for apples and pears and it will apply for a further five years from 1 January this year under modified terms and conditions as indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech. Under the 1981-85 scheme payments were made on all exports of apples and pears separately in years when the average export return was less than the determined underwritten or floor price. The floor price was equal to 95 per cent of the weighted average export return for the preceding four export seasons. A recent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry recommended continuation of the underwriting for a further three years only under amended terms and conditions. Under the IAC's proposal, underwriting would apply to at risk exports only up to annual limits of about $2.5m for apples and $1.5m for pears. The floor price would be calculated at 80 per cent of the weighted average at risk export return for the highest three of the previous four seasons. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(7.15) —It is reported in today's Canberra Times that a significant number of Australian Labor Parliament back benchers walked out of yesterday's Caucus meeting in total disgust-a walk-out-after a motion calling on their own Government to increase overseas aid was defeated. I can understand their disgust and I congratulate them on their actions. For there is no doubt that Labor's actions have let down all those Australians who care about the poor and the needy in the world. We have heard the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) complaining about the neglect of the poor and the needy in Australia. Labor has long maintained that we should be increasing aid programs but has turned its back on that. In so many spheres Labor's aid has been rhetorical rather than practical. The Australian Labor Party policy statement on overseas aid declares: An unequivocal commitment to achieve the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent GNP for official development assistance, with an immediate target of 0.5 per cent by 1985, and eventual target of 1.0 per cent. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has talked in this House about a `global moral consensus' and reiterated Labor's commitment to foreign aid. The fact is that Labor has done little to help the developing world solve its very real and pressing problems. I would ask the House to look at the record. The Australian figure for official development assistance in 1985-86 was estimated at 0.45 per cent of gross national product. Even in this paltry figure there is considerable sleight of hand as for the first time the expenses of educating overseas students in Australia have been included as part of Australia's official aid budget funding. If one takes this out, to get an accurate figure for comparison purposes with previous years, the real figure is 0.41 per cent, not 0.45 per cent. This is the lowest percentage of aid to GNP for more than 20 years. Yet it is not only the volume of aid that has declined dramatically, for the collapse of the Australian dollar has sharply reduced the value of Australia's aid to overseas recipients. To look at the figures in another way: The total allocation for overseas aid in 1985-86 is $1,025.9m, an increase of only 1.4 per cent over last year's figure of $1,011.4m. But with the inflation estimated at 8 per cent and the devaluation of the Australian dollar, we have had a decrease in real terms of some 15 per cent. Labor quite simply has no credibility left in this area. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) reportedly said when he seconded the motion yesterday in Caucus: `The world is going through a chronic and severe economic recession'. He is right and the need now is as great as it has ever been. What the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) reportedly said in putting his motion yesterday and what he was trying to do was to remind Labor of this and to press the Government to act in accordance with its own stated commitments. Yet his motion was lost. The 46 members of Labor's Caucus, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who voted against this proposition ought to hang their heads over their vote and what they have done to the Australian aid program. There is no doubt that Labor's hypocrisy on aid matters is exceeded only by its humbug. The coalition recognises that Australia's interests, its principles and its good fortune combine in pointing to the need for Australia to contribute actively and imaginatively to the progress of developing countries. But Labor has forgotten all this. The short answer is that Labor rejected those members of its Caucus who were concerned with the miserable aid performance-the lowest record in percentage terms to the GNP in 20 years. Mr Downer —It is shameful. Mr PEACOCK —Shameful-and shameful in terms not merely of performance but of the promise that was made beforehand. I recall that the first action of the current Foreign Minister when he was Treasurer in 1975 was to cut substantially the aid vote. He succeeded in doing that as Foreign Minister. Honourable members opposite stand without credibility among their own people, those decent Australians who work so hard to raise money and expect their Government to play a role in development assistance. They stand condemned for the lowest proportion in 20 years. I trust that, despite the need to cut expenditure in the forthcoming Budget, the aid program will be reversed in the sense of increasing funds to meet Australia's needs in this area and to meet the priorities that are required. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(7.21) —I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to some developments in the automotive reconditioning industry in this country. The matter has come before me through representations I have received from a firm operating within my electorate, Gem Engines Pty Ltd. Gem began operation in 1956, and since then has grown to a firm of over 200 employees, rebuilding over 20,000 engines last financial year. The business of engine remanufacture is one of great importance in a world growing more conscious of the need to conserve resources and make full use of goods we already have. The skill of factories such as Gem Engines provides us with maximum use of existing plant, adding years of life to machinery which would otherwise revert to scrap. Gem and other Australian reconditioners offer car engines which have been completely dissembled, reworked and put back together like a new engine. Now the industry is facing competition from a very different source. Japanese imports of secondhand engines threaten the continuation of business in Australia. In Japan, it costs considerably more to register a vehicle each year the car has been operating. Vehicle costs are so low anyway that many drivers opt to buy a new car rather than keep their old vehicle. The result is an excess of used, but still useful, engines about three to six years old of varied and sometimes unknown quality and mileage. The small demand for used cars means that the engines, to the Japanese, are useful only as scrap. Therefore, any sale overseas will be profitable if it makes more than the cost of scrap. This is the product which the Australian reconditioners must compete with. Though interchangeable, they are hardly compatible offerings. Reconditioners offer an extensive guarantee on parts and labour for some years of service. Importers, selling a largely unknown quantity, will do no more than offer three to six months warranty on parts alone. The effect on the Australian secondhand motor industry has been astounding. Over the last five years the sale of Japanese imports has grown from 3,000 to 33,000 engines. Over the same period the pressure on Australian reconditioners has increased. Repco engine services at Milperra, Repco at Camperdown and the Ford Motor Co. of Aust. Ltd at Ballarat have all gone to the wall, partly due to the fall in demand for reconditioning services. The Repco operation in Melbourne is also losing sales to the imports. It is not only competition from an unexpected source which causes the industry such trouble. It may be argued that businesses must be expected to weather such changes. What is entirely indefensible is the abuse by some importers of the sales tax regulations. I am informed that about 90 per cent of reconditioned and imported engine sales are made as trade sales, which attract sales tax at a certain rate. Some importers have decided that they can cut costs further by claiming that their sales are to consumers, paying sales tax `at wharf', which attracts a much lower rate. The difference between the two rates is about $30 per imported engine. Multiply this figure by the growing number of imports and one arrives at quite a staggering amount of revenue being lost through fraud. Effectively, then, much of the importers' competitiveness is due to dishonesty. Surely the industry must be protected from this. The cost to the industry, the Government and the people does not end there. First, there is the cost to the unwary consumer or the buyer making a false economy. There is one certainty associated with the otherwise unknown engine import-it will need to be repaired more often and replaced much sooner than its reconditioned counterpart. Perhaps the buyer deserves this, but surely then that defeats the aim of reconditioning-to get maximum use out of every engine at a minimum cost. Another loss would ultimately be borne by all Australians. It would be easy enough for Gem and other reconditioners to capitulate to the circumstances and go over to being merely importers themselves. They could cut labour costs dramatically. The present staff of 220 could be dropped to 50 sales and import staff. What must be kept in mind is the circumstances which have enabled such a flood of Japanese imports to overwhelm the local market. Those circumstances may change. The Japanese may find extensive markets overseas or locally which will absorb the excessive supply. The never ending flow may dry up. The short term circumstances which led to the elimination of the reconditioning industry would, in the long term, lead us to dependence on an overseas supply which we have no control over. I, therefore, call on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to investigate the sales tax abuses by importers of Japanese engines and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to assist companies such as Gem engines against the present dumping operations. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(7.26) —I rise tonight to speak on an issue which highlights how government bureaucracies, in one fell swoop, can devastate the life of an ordinary citizen in our society. In this case, the ordinary citizen is Mr John Buckland, a pensioner of Nowra in my electorate of Gilmore. In August 1983 the Department of Social Security withdrew Mr Buckland's invalid pension, claiming that he was not 85 per cent disabled. Astonished by the Department's decision, Mr Buckland applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in an attempt to have the decision reversed. He sought legal advice and underwent a number of medical examinations in preparing for his case to go before the Tribunal. Mr Buckland informs me that the total cost of his legal representations to win back his pension was approximately $3,500. However, two weeks before Mr Buckland's hearing before the Tribunal, the Department of Social Security apparently realised that it had made a mistake and Mr Buckland's pension was restored and backdated to August 1983, when it was originally withdrawn. One would think that this would be the happy ending to the story, but unfortunately it is not the end of the story. Mr Buckland has been left with an enormous legal and medical bill. He believes-rightly so, I think-that the Department of Social Security should foot the bill as it had admitted that it had made a mistake by taking away his pension when it later decided to restore it and backdate it to August 1983. Mr Buckland would not have been forced to go to so much unnecessary expense had this huge government bureaucracy been doing its work properly. Let us look at this case a little more closely. The Department claimed that Mr Buckland was not 85 per cent disabled. Mr Buckland has provided me with medical reports and opinions in which five of the six doctors who gave their assessment said he was unfit for work or was 85 per cent disabled. It was these assessments which the Department apparently used to support its decision to withdraw Mr Buckland's pension. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on a number of occasions. He has looked into the matter and has concluded that Mr Buckland's legal expenses should be only $1,832, and that the Department of Social Security is not liable. I appreciate the Minister's efforts, but neither I nor Mr Buckland can accept that decision. Whether the legal costs are $1,800-odd or $3,500, he cannot afford to pay those costs, nor should he, as the mistake was the Department's, not his. Mr Buckland is an invalid pensioner. The Department of Social Security must be prepared to accept the blame and bear the full costs of the predicament in which it has placed Mr Buckland. I repeat: Had the Department not in its haste withdrawn Mr Buckland's pension and then restored it-a blatant admission that it had made a mistake-Mr Buckland would not be faced with this enormous and unnecessary bill which he cannot afford to pay. This is another example of government bureaucracies wielding their powers without compassion for the individual. Instead of crushing ordinary citizens such as Mr Buckland, the Department should channel its resources into combating and catching those people who are ripping off millions of dollars every year in social security fraud. I ask the Minister and the authorities within his Department to re-examine the case of Mr Buckland, show a little backbone, admit that they have made a mistake and bear the full cost of that mistake. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(7.30) —Tonight I would like to pay tribute to the work of the New South Wales Police Force in the Macarthur electorate, in particular with regard to its running of Blue Light discos. As honourable members would be aware, Blue Light discos are dances put on by police and community groups for students between eight and 18 years of age. They are strictly supervised by members of the local community and the local constabulary. No alcohol is allowed and the children are supervised within the confines of the area in which the disco is being held. Last Saturday evening it was my pleasure to attend the inaugural Blue Light Disco with my daughter Kiley at The Oaks in my electorate. Constable Chris Lowden of The Oaks police station ran the show. As it was the inaugural disco it was attended by a number of people from police public relations and by the officer in charge of the Campbelltown police district, Inspector Austin Brady. This disco is not the only one that operates within the Macarthur electorate. Indeed, two others are operated by the New South Wales Police Force and, of course, the local community: One is at Picton and the other is at Camden. The Picton Blue Light Disco commenced towards the end of 1985, when an inaugural general meeting of the Picton Blue Light Disco was held. Members of Picton Apex, Rotaract, the police and interested residents attended that meeting and elected Sergeant Stuart Bridle as president for 1985 to organise the dances for the young people of the district. As most honourable members would know, particularly the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin)-they are both in the chamber tonight and they are both former members for Macarthur-the Macarthur electorate is an extensive area and covers a lot of small towns. Accordingly, to draw together the young people from the villages to attend these dances is no mean feat. To that extent it is very pleasing to see that local community groups and contractors have come to the assistance of the Blue Light discos. The Camden Coal and Bulk Haulage Company has donated, on an ongoing basis, the cost of chartering a bus which each month brings the kids from the local villages to Picton to attend the disco. That is one example of the generosity of the people of the Macarthur electorate, who know that the number of outlets for young people in these areas is not all that great, particularly at a time when we are looking to the future of young Australians and endeavouring to see that they have a number of social and cultural activities which they can obviously enjoy. Three discos were held by the Picton Blue Light Disco organisation during 1985 and attendances were well over the 600 mark on each occasion. That again stands testimony to the organisational ability of the police force and the citizens in that area. Clearly, the $2 per head charge to those who attend is reasonable. It demonstrates the interest of the kids who want to have a good time. As I indicated, last Saturday evening was the inaugural Blue Light Disco at The Oaks and I talked to some of the young people there and to some of the people who were helping. I spoke to the school principal-the disco was held at the Oaks Primary School-and to a number of police officers who attended. It is quite clear that the Blue Light Disco is something of which the New South Wales Police Force can be proud. It is held not only in isolated village areas in my electorate but also in Wollongong on the South coast. A disco is held regularly at the Bulli Police Citizens Club and it too is an outstanding success. If the success of those discos operating in my electorate is anything to go by, it is a project which I am sure the New South Wales police would like to see emulated in many other areas, not just throughout New South Wales but the rest of Australia. It provides a very useful and worthwhile outlet for young people today. Criticism is often levelled at the police force in New South Wales but I think this is one area in which it has been outstandingly successful. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.35) —I want to say something tonight about the well debated issue of oil prices and the obligation that should rest on the Government to give to Australians the full flow on from the fall in international oil prices. This whole exercise, though, is a very interesting one which contrasts the performances of two governments-the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government. This matter has been debated at great length over the last couple of weeks. One of those governments stuck to its commitments on this issue and acted with integrity; the other has acted with no integrity and has shown a clear indication that it will break its commitments. Honourable members on the other side of the House have repeatedly taken the opportunity to rubbish the Fraser Government, to denigrate the Fraser Government, and this issue of oil prices is therefore an interesting one to look at because it shows rather startling results. For the benefit of those honourable members opposite who may have forgotten, international oil prices have now fallen to around $15 a barrel. As a result, under the import parity pricing arrangements one would expect that price to flow on to motorists and primary producers in the form of a cut of 11c a litre. Yet we hear that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is now speculating on the cut being not 3c but apparently 6 1/2c a litre. As a result the Australian motorist, the Australian primary producer and Australian businesses will be shortchanged. In my State of South Australia, if the full 11c price reduction were carried through, our primary producers would benefit by about $19m. However, the Government, according to the leaks that have come from the Treasurer's office, intends to cheat the South Australian farmers yet again-on top of all the other things it has done to those primary producers-by about $7m. That is a pretty considerable act of treachery; indeed, it is an act of fraud. The dairy farmers in my electorate, who are already encountering enormous difficulties-I am glad to see the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is in the House-would be expecting a cut in their costs of about $900 a year. That is an enormous cut in costs for dairy farmers, who are right on the breadline. I appreciate that honourable members on the other side are not concerned about dairy farmers in my electorate or anywhere else. If this full flow on were carried through by the Government those farmers would get their $900. Again, the Government is intending to shortchange them by about $300 a year. The Government promised, as we all now know, that it would provide these cuts in oil prices, but clearly those promises will be irrelevant. Let me remind the House yet again of what the Treasurer said a couple of years ago: Government policy ties Australian petrol prices to the price of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Any fall in the Saudi price must be passed on to Australian motorists in lower petrol prices. Of course, in his statement the Treasurer ignored the primary producers, but he made a very firm commitment. We remember what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said during the 1983 election campaign: Petrol prices will be immediately cut by about 3c a litre under a Federal Labor Government. That is one of the greatest frauds in Australian political history. I began my speech by saying that I wanted to talk about contrasts. I was browsing through some old Press releases and came across one put out by Malcolm Fraser on 2 March 1983. Well may honourable members on the other side ridicule it because in this Press release Malcolm Fraser referred not only to the fall in oil prices of between $4 and $6 a barrel but also he stated: The Government's oil parity pricing policy is well known. In the context of that policy, the effect of this reduction in Gulf oil prices will be a reduction in petrol prices in Australia. The reductions will be in the order of 4-5c per litre. That reduction will be of very real assistance to Australian motorists. We gave the Australian motorist the cuts; we gave the Australian primary producers the cuts. The people on the other side lied their way into government and are now denying the cuts that our primary producers deserve. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that word. Mr DOWNER —Which word? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member knows well which word. Mr DOWNER —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(7.40) —`So what chance has Jan Hudson? She, poor girl, was only Mrs New South Wales 1985. And she was elected in 1985'. So said Ron Saw in the `People' column of the Bulletin of 18 February 1986. With those sarcastic comments, unfortunately Mr Saw did not realise that Jan Hudson, a citizen of the central western city of Bathurst, New South Wales, was to become Mrs Australia 1986. Jan Hudson is a very well-known Bathurst identity and she received her honour in a glittering ceremony at the Adelaide Hilton Hotel last Friday. Jan is very well-known in the Bathurst district as a person who cares a lot about people other than just herself. As Mrs Australia, Jan will be the national ambassador for a number of charities, including the Multi-handicapped Children and Handicapped Persons, the Retarded Children and the Sudden Infant Death Research Foundation, as well as the Crippled Children Society, organisations which she has worked with and for over a number of years. In fact, she had worked for the Crippled Children Society for at least seven years in New South Wales. This is not Jan's only honour, for in 1982-83 she was named Mrs Forget-me-not. This was an award given to a woman who showed the most dedication to the work of the Crippled Children Society in New South Wales. I had the honour of teaching a couple of the children of the Hudson family as students at Bathurst High School prior to my entering the national Parliament in 1983. Last Sunday, as I was leaving Bathurst to travel to Canberra, there was the family-Amanda, Suzie and Leah-and other people anxiously waiting to greet Jan as she stepped from the plane ready to be greeted by the citizens of Bathurst after receiving this great award. I am sure all people in the Bathurst community are very proud of Jan's achievement in becoming Mrs Australia 1986. I am sure that Ron Saw, of the `People' column of the Bulletin, will now have to eat his words in the next edition. Madam SPEAKER-Order! I have to inform members of the current situation relating to the provision of catering services in the House. Following a meeting of members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union this day, I have been advised that the union and staff intend to reimpose the campaign of industrial action in support of the union's demand that the Joint House Department should immediately resume negotiations on the issues of increased pay scales and changed work methods. In an endeavour to resolve the dispute, Joint House Department officers have engaged in discussions with the union in an attempt to identify improved work methods and the union's associated claim for increased pay scales on behalf of its members. These discussions have been terminated by the union unless negotiations are entered into on the basis that there shall be a commitment to work towards an agreement on wage increases and changed work methods. As I have previously stated, I am concerned that any such claim should be considered strictly in accordance with the national wage principles. The advice of the Public Service Board continues to be obtained in this matter. In such circumstances where bans or stoppages are threatened, and in accordance with accepted industrial practice, I would expect that the threat of bans and stoppages needs to be withdrawn before discussions can continue. The union is being informed of my willingness to instruct departmental officers to resume discussions when bans are lifted. Until a favourable response is received from the union, I regret to advise that catering services are likely to be interrupted or withdrawn until further developments take place. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.45) —Of increasing concern to very many of my constituents in the electorate of Gippsland is the effect that the changes in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation regional radio network will have on reception. You will appreciate, Madam Speaker, that a great many Gippslanders, throughout the mountainous area of East Gippsland particularly, are dependent upon broadcasts from the one and only radio station that they can receive for a great deal of information, not to mention assistance in emergency situations. The establishment of an FM mono network for regional radio threatens this reception. There are a great many unanswered questions about just how powerful the signal will be, particularly, as I say, in mountainous regions. We are led to understand by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that the ABC's second network, which will be the regional network, will change to an FM mono band, whereas the national radio will remain on AM band. I believe that there is a real risk that this change will result in a deterioration of the service in not just reception but also, it is said, staffing levels in the form of rural officers. This is a concern raised also by the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association. I made representations some five weeks ago to the Minister for Communications in relation to this issue, and I await a reply. On an issue of such importance, I believe that a delay of five weeks-and goodness knows how many more weeks to come-is unacceptable. I am led to understand that the change to FM mono band will be achieved by adding to existing television receivers throughout Gippsland. It is a very inexpensive way of making the change. However, many of the areas of East Gippsland-Dargo, Gelantipy, Omeo, Combienbar, and Cann River-receive either very poor or, in most cases, no ABC television. Hence, if the FM mono network is to be attached to the existing television receivers, it logically follows that they will receive the same quality of reception. Where there is poor television reception, there will be poor radio reception. The radio reception will reflect the television reception. East Gippsland is a very mountainous area and whilst an FM mono band may work in the western part of Victoria, where there are compelling reasons for changing to the FM band, I do not believe, on the technical evidence I have been able to gather, that it will work in East Gippsland. It is important that the Government take note of the particular problems of a large segment of Victoria in respect of radio reception. At present, the only form of communication for many East Gippslanders is through the ABC regional radio and they depend heavily on it for livestock market reports, weather forecasts and other important information, as well as entertainment. The fear is that through the location of FM mono transmitter stations in similar positions to television transmitters, these people will not receive the same radio reception as previously. I understand also that there is said to be a proposal that in areas such as East Gippsland, where the FM mono network will not be received, it may be possible for that particular regional ABC radio to remain on the AM band. If, after careful investigation, it is found that FM mono will not work in Gippsland, at least to the same standard as previously-and, indeed, we would expect that a major change such as this would provide an improved service-ABC radio in Gippsland, through 3GI, must remain on the AM band. Another major concern is, of course, that the regional network remains as strong and vigorous as it is at present, and that there be no diminution in the number of rural officers. We cannot stress strongly enough the importance of the ABC regional network to country Australia. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.50) —I take this opportunity to remind the House of the appalling situation which continues to exist for the majority of the population in South Africa-the black South Africans. In South Africa, black people are not allowed to move freely around their own country and this control is exercised by the legal instrument of pass laws. Every black person in South Africa is required to take out a reference book, or pass, which must include their ten fingerprints. Although other members of the population-white, Indian and coloured-are also required to have identity documents, they are not required to produce the document on demand as are the black people. In 1984 alone 260,000 black South Africans were arrested for offences in relation to the pass laws. Between 1973 and 1983 identity document offences involved the arrest of 653,421 Africans and two coloured, but none for whites or Indians. These figures indicate quite clearly the discriminatory nature of the whole system of pass laws against black people. Certain promises have been given by leading figures in the South African Government that the pass laws are to be relaxed. I ask the House: What does such relaxation really mean? The pass laws provide the mechanism by which every person born in South Africa is, on birth, classified into one of three racial groups; namely, white, coloured or black. If there is to be any real meaning in South African Government assurances that apartheid is to be gradually phased out over time, it is this race classification system which must be abolished and not just the system of pass laws which provide only the mechanism by which apartheid is enforced. The race classification system not only divides the three main racial groups of white, coloured and black but also divides the 22 million black people of South Africa into 10 separate bantustans or homelands. The homelands are progressively becoming so-called independent states within South Africa and have been given passports rather than pass books. So the question has to be asked: Are the citizens of the homelands to continue to be required to carry their passports when the passbooks are abolished or are they to remain what amounts to foreigners in their own country if they travel outside their homeland but within South Africa? Black people are not allowed to own land in white South Africa and conversely white people are not allowed to own land in black states. However, black people who work in declared white areas may be permitted to reside in black township areas adjacent to the white residential areas, but the freehold ownership is vested in development boards administered under urban areas Acts. The right of a black South African to live in the black townships is rigidly controlled with restrictions on movement which are unbelievable to those of us who have lived in a democratic country all our lives. The whole system of apartheid will remain virtually untouched by the relaxation of pass laws while the race classification and residential segregation system remains. The point I want to make tonight is that it is necessary to make very clear to the South African Government that the ideology of apartheid is a denial of human existence. It is a system which denies human rights to a whole race of people not because they have certain political or religious beliefs but because their skin is black. The terminating of the pass laws will not change the system if apartheid remains because other existing or new laws will have to be found which will reinforce the race classification and land ownership system which presently gives the white South African complete domination over the black South African in a master-slave relationship. Those honourable members opposite who trumpet `What about the communist countries?' whenever the question of human rights in black South Africa is raised fail to understand that the illegality of political or religious activity in one way or another is invoked by virtually all members of the United Nations. Apartheid, however, is to be found in only one country of the world-South Africa-which has been outlawed from the United Nations because of the abhorrence of a system which denies human rights to black people because they are black. In conclusion, I would like to quote the words of Dr Nico Smith, a Dutch Reform Church Minister. These words were contained in an article in the National Times of 10 January. Dr Smith was talking about black teenagers in South Africa and he said: When they've got into a situation where there's actually nothing to look forward to, when there's no sign of hope that the future may be better, they lose their sensitivity to life. They don't care if they die. They don't care if they kill. What I'm trying to do is prepare people for the new South Africa, to get people used to a new world where there'll be no black people and white people, just people. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(7.55) —The American presence, and the protections offered by the ANZUS alliance, are critical to the development and stability of our region. Unless balanced by the strength of the United States, any and every increase in the military presence or political influence of the Soviet Union will have dramatic-and potentially disastrous-consequences for Australia. Additionally, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines are particularly vulnerable because of their current economic problems and the volatility of their domestic political situations. They are ready prey for those whose intentions are not in their best interests and certainly not in the best interests of Australia and Australians. We must take immediate steps to enhance and develop our international role as a leader in the South West Pacific region. It is imperative we assume this responsibility. But we cannot lead if we do not know where we are going, or have the necessary means to ensure we will arrive. Leadership depends on establishing authority. Authority depends on power. Power does not come cheaply, and we must be prepared to pay a realistic and reasonable premium for our present and future freedom, security and prosperity. Part of this premium is to honour our alliances and treaties with our friends. ANZUS is in tatters. Yet this Government still hesitates to act to restore it to its former significance. The United States is our friend. It has proved its loyalty and reliability time and again. We still need the protection that only the United States can provide. But this Government has treated it shoddily and with disdain. If we are not careful it may look elsewhere for a substitute to replace the fair-weather friendship we now offer. We have turned our backs on it. Under the current circumstances we cannot really expect, but we must hope and pray, that it will be prepared to forgive and forget, so that in the future, as in the past, when we need it, it will be there. Any thought that New Zealand's defection from ANZUS is temporary has been dashed. With the current Hawke Government similarly afflicted, Mr Lange is, in a policy sense, being bullied by the same leftist theoreticians that exist in Australia. Mr Lange is now, inevitably, proceeding down the trail that will lead New Zealand out of ANZUS permanently and into neutrality and non-alignment. When one considers the marvellous links that have been established between our two countries under the spirit of ANZAC, Australians everywhere will deplore the direction that New Zealand's fourth Labour Government has taken, and the lack of any attempt by the Australian Government to rectify the situation. Current New Zealand Government policy threatens not only the entire fabric of the ANZUS alliance, but security in the whole South Pacific Region, as US fleet and maritime operations are hindered by the ostrich-like stance of short-sighted Kiwis who seem intent on rushing towards a dodo-like destiny. ANZUS is critical to us, and to the United States and New Zealand. It is also important to the Soviet Union, but for very different reasons. It must be rejoicing in its apparently irretrievable demise. What has our socialist left controlled Labor Government done to restore the ANZUS alliance? Nothing. Instead it is investigating separate and impotent alternatives of Australia and the United States, and Australia and New Zealand alliances. Everyone knows that one can sit comfortably and confidently on a three-legged stool. But take away one leg and either one falls flat on one's face, or the stool collapses, or both. The two-legged stool offers no security at all, and is no substitute or alternative for the stability offered by its three-legged counterpart. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 February 1986: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Report for 1984-85. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1986-No. 1-Survey of environmental issues and usage of national parks. Australian National University-Report for 1984-Statement relating to non-completion of part of report. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 414) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Who determined the $5,000 threshold criteria for the `hardship provisions' of the assets test. (2) What is the basis of this figure. (3) Was consideration given to the need for farmers to have a small `kitty' to cover seasonal variations, or for old people generally to cover hospital and funeral costs. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Social Security Act provides that the value of an asset may be exempted if, among other things, the Secretary is satisfied that the person would suffer severe financial hardship if the asset were not exempted. The Secretary had instructed his delegates by way of administrative guidelines that severe financial hardship could be accepted where the value of the person's readily available or liquid assets did not exceed $3,000 in the case of a single person or $5,000 in the case of a married couple. These limits were set subject to a continuing review of the operation of the assets test and the hardship provisions in particular. In the light of this review the limits have now been doubled to $6,000 in the case of a single person or $10,000 for a married couple. All persons who were not eligible for payment of pension under the hardship provisions because of the amount held in readily available funds are being re-examined to take account of the doubling of these limits. A person who is eligible for payment under the amended guidelines will have his or her pension adjusted with effect from 21 March 1985. (2) and (3) In light of the monitoring experience, the revised figures-which do not include the value of real estate, motor vehicles, insurance policies and other non-liquid assets-are considered to be consistent with the concept of severe financial hardship while permitting the person to retain reasonable liquid funds to meet normal expenses and bills and unexpected costs. (Question No. 1446) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Director General Recruiting conducts on-going advertising campaigns to attract recruits into the Defence Force. The campaigns are directed towards specialist entry and general entry applicants and are conducted on an individual service and tri-service basis. The campaigns take the form of television, radio, press and magazine advertisements and are planned to coincide with specific intake dates for the various categories of entries. Separately from advertising campaigns a relatively small-scale study of the attitude of young people towards the Defence Force was undertaken by Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP), in 1984. Also, during 1984, the former Department of Defence Support awarded two contracts in connection with Project WINNIN, an anti-ship missile decoy system under development. (see my answer to part (3)) (2) The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB-AS) Sydney and Melbourne, of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism co-ordinates the campaigns of the Director General Recruiting. (3) Recruiting Campaigns Navy-Rodney Silver and Partners March 83-June 1983 $0.15m, 1983-84 $0.28m, 1984-85 $0.27m. Army-Schofield Sherbon and Baker March 83-June 83 $0.2m, 1983-84 $1.28m, 1984-85 $0.9m. Army-Creative Oasis March 83-June 83 $0.2m, 1983-84 $1.52m, 1984-85 $1.39m. Army-Leo Burnett March 83-June 83 $0.05m, 1983-84 $0.237m, 1984-85 $0.2m. Air Force-Connaghan & May Ayer March 83-June 83 $0.2m, 1983-84 $0.8m, 1984-85 $0.7m. Tri Service-Clemengers March 83-June 83 $0.04m, 1983-84 $0.3m, 1984-85 $1.42m. Tri Service-Young Rubicon March 83-June 83 $0.03m, 1983-84 $0.16m. Note: All media placement for recruiting advertising is conducted through a master placement agency; print media advertising is placed by USP Needham and electronic media advertising by Minahan Dayman Adams. Expenditure for such placement is incorporated within the overall campaign figures but is not separately identifiable. Market Surveys-1984, Attitude Study, ANOP, $0.02m. 1984, Market Survey Project WINNIN, Trippet Allan & Assoc. Pty Ltd., $0.3m. 1984, Marketing Film Project WINNIN, South Australian Film Corporation, $0.055m. (4) (a) The cost of each Defence Force Recruiting campaign is contained in the answer to part (3). (b) The agency fees for each campaign are as follows and should be deducted from the campaign costs shown in answer to part (3). (4) Navy-Rodney Silver and Partners, $136,520.09. Army-Schofield Sherbon and Baker $108,203.21. Army-Creative Oasis $141,998.27. Army Reserve-Creative Oasis $399,788.87. *Army-Leo Burnett $33,163.00. *Air Force-Connaghan & May Ayer $77,523.44. Air Force-D'Arcy MacManus & Masius $24,044.73. *Tri-Service-John Clemenger $81,690.68. *Tri-Service-Young & Rubicon Not available. Tri-Service-Eddelbuttel Osborne $1,052.11. * Payments to agencies marked with an * may not be complete because records from Melbourne pre March 1984 are unavailable. At that time the Australian Government Advertising Advisory Committee paid some campaign costs direct to the agency concerned. (Question No. 2246) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) How many Departmental employees are employed as airways operations officers, at the 32 locations in Australia where a pre-flight briefing function is provided. (2) Will the number of employees so engaged by his Department increase or decrease in the future. (3) Will the withdrawal of Bureau of Meteorology briefing services at 10 locations affect the number of airways operations officers. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are 217 airways operations officers employed at the 32 locations where a pre-flight briefing function is provided. Of these, 75 are dedicated pre-flight briefing officers. A further 16 provide pre-flight briefing as part of their duties. (2) The number of staff required to perform the pre-flight briefing function will depend on Government decisions on the future provision of air traffic services. (3) The staffing requirements at locations where Bureau of Meteorology briefing services are withdrawn will be assessed on a location-by-location basis. No increase in Departmental staff would be proposed unless this could be shown to result in a net reduction in costs to the aviation industry. (Question No. 2387) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What is the estimated cost of Australian participation in UNESCO, including the costs incurred by the Australian Embassy, in 1985. (2) What amount has been spent in Australia by UNESCO in 1985. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia's contribution to the UNESCO budget for the 1985 calendar year was $US2,671,425 or $A3,593,814. Expenditure against Foreign Affairs appropriations by and on behalf of the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO in Paris, for the 1984-85 financial year, was $A205,260. The estimated cost for the 1985-86 financial year is $281,100. (2) UNESCO does not keep a tally of money spent on Australia-related program activities and contracts nor does it have separate records of fares and allowances provided to Australians to attend UNESCO-sponsored meetings. I am therefore unable to provide the information sought. (Question No. 2503) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A number of organisations operating in the ACT are currently receiving grants from the Department of Health and the ACT Health Authority under the following programs: A. Department of Health: (a) National Community Health Program (NCHP)-National Heart Foundation of Australia, Alcohol and Drug Foundation of Australia, Australian Deafness Council, Australian Diabetes Foundation, ANZSERCH/APHA, National Secretariat for Natural Family Planning of the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission. (b) Family Planning Program (FPP) and Health Program Grants (HPG's)-The Family Planning Association ACT Inc., The National Secretariat for Natural Family Planning of the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission (c) National Campaign Against Drug Abuse-Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Australia, Drugs in Sport Committee of the Australian Sports Medicine Federation (ASMF), Skylark Puppet and Mask Theatre Association Inc., ACT Health Authority (for funding of DRIC Crisis Centre, TOORA; and ADPACT-The funding for these organisations is the responsibility of the ACT Health Authority). (d) National Drug Education Program-Australian Sports Medicine Federation. (e) Australian Institute of Health Research Grants-ANU: Social Justice Project, ACTHA: Drug Abuse Prevention and Education in Primary Schools, Belconnen High School: Drug Abuse Prevention and Education in secondary schools-Care Education. (f) National Health Promotion Program (Demonstrated Projects)-The Australian Sports Medicine Federation: Sports first aid training for unemployed youth, ACT Health Authority: Healthy lifestyle vacations for `operation oldies' participants. B. ACT Health Authority: (a) Calvary Hospital (b) Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service (c) Queen Elizabeth II Home for Mothers and Babies (d) ADPACT-for operation of the Kirralika Therapeutic Community (e) Lifeline (f) Family Planning Association (g) Diabetes Association (h) Drug Referral and Information Centre (i) South-East NSW & ACT Hydatid Control Campaign (j) ACT Cancer Society (k) Handicapped Citizens Association-for operation of a group home. Note-On 12 December 1985, the Minister for Territories assumed responsibility for the ACT Health Authority. (2) No. There is no specific requirement for organisations to be registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. Most, however, are registered under either the Companies Act 1983 or the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. Those that are not are asked to justify their not seeking incorporation. There is a strong preference for funding incorporated bodies. Recipient organisations which are not incorporated are encouraged to become so or if this is not practicable, arrangements are made where possible to provide funds through a parent incorporated body. (3) No. In the past it has not been found necessary to seek information from the records maintained by the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. Information will be sought from the Commission should circumstances warrant it in the future. (4) Compliance with the provisions of the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953 is the responsibility of the Corporate Affairs Commission. (5) Under the conditions applicable to the Department's and Authority's grants all organisations in receipt of a grant are required to submit at the end of each financial year audited financial statements and a certificate of compliance stating that the organisation has met the purposes and fulfilled the conditions of the grant. (Question No. 2675) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: Is it a fact that the Government requires the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to receive and monitor information from all universities and colleges of advanced education on each institution's achievements in the implementation of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on tenure of employment of academics; if so, what steps have been taken by each university and college of advanced education to implement the recommendations of the committee applicable to universities and colleges, particularly recommendations 1 to 4 and 15 to 19, dealing with reviews of academic performance. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government has not requested the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to receive and monitor information from universities and colleges of advanced education on the implementation of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its report on the tenure of employment of academics. In its Supplementary Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium, the Government requested the Commission to establish as Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education to report by April 1986 with terms of reference which include an examination of the means of improving the capacity of institutions to respond flexibly to the requirements of economic growth and to community needs, with particular reference to staffing mechanisms. The Government will consider the Senate Committee's tenure recommendations in conjunction with the CTEC Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness Higher Education. (Question No. 2917) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Who are the members of the National Aboriginal Education Committee (2) In respect of which matters is the Committee consulted and how does consultation occur Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) The members of the National Aboriginal Education Committee are: Full-time Members-Mr E. West Chairman (Appointed 13.12.85). Vacant Deputy Chairman. Part-time Members-Australian Capital Territory, Ms E. Bourke. New South Wales-Mr J. Heath, Mr R. Morgan. Northern Territory-Ms J. Crawshaw, Ms W. Ludwig. Torres Strait Islands-Mr J. Billy. Queensland-Mr E. Law, Ms E. Munn. South Australia-Mr P. Buckskin, Ms W. Clinch. Tasmania-Ms A. Stackhouse. Victoria-Ms L. Crocker. Western Australia-Mr S. Albert, Mr R. Garlett. Specialists-Ms H. Gulash (Primary/Secondary), Ms D. Tyrrell (Curriculum Development), Ms O. Green (Early Childhood), Ms L. Holt (Tertiary), Mr D. Rosas (Traditional Specialist). (2) The National Aboriginal Education Committee is the Government's principal advisory body on Aboriginal education matters. As such it is consulted on matters affecting all levels of education from pre-school to tertiary level. Consultation with the Committee occurs in a number of ways. These include requests for advice from the Ministers for Education and Aboriginal Affairs and their Departments. The advice of their NAEC is also available to other relevant Commonwealth Departments and authorities. The part-time members of the Committee are located in all States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. These members maintain close contact with Aboriginal communities at the local level and in this way are able to reflect Aboriginal community views on education. In addition the National Aboriginal Education Committee maintains links with State Aboriginal Education Consultative Groups. This close association between the National and State advisory committees assists in ensuring that formulation of policy advice on Aboriginal education and the determination of priorities is carried out in a consistent and coherent manner. (Question No. 3095) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the Natural Disasters Organisation in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in NSW. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for the organisation. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under the auspices of the organisation. (5) What specific projects were funded by the organisation in each year in the electoral division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the electoral division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding by the organisation in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the electoral division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under the organisation in each year in the electoral division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the organisation in the electoral divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under the organisation in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the electoral division of Richmond to the existence of the organisation. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under the auspices of the organisation is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the electoral division of Richmond, if not, why not. (13) If so, (a) how and (b) when will the information be provided. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) $4,785,000, (ii) $5,263,000, (iii) $5,850,000, (iv) $5,860,000. (b) Projects only (i) $3,493,000, (ii) $3,730,000, (iii) $4,057,000, (iv) $3,963,000. (2) (a) 1982/1983 $924,539; 1983/1984 $946,488; 1984/1985 $958,884; 1985/1986 $919,000. (b) 26.5 per cent; 25.4 per cent; 23.7 per cent; 23.2 per cent (3) The funds were administered by the NDO with assistance from the State and Territory Emergency Services. (4) The funds were allocated in accordance with decisions made by the NDO in consultation with the NSW State Emergency Services. (5) Funding assistance was provided for the construction of headquarters for the local State Emergency Service units in Ballina and Copmanhurst Shire in 1982-83. No accommodation projects were funded in 1983-84, 1984-85 or 1985-86. Salaries reimbursement and equipment for the Electoral Division were also funded by the Natural Disasters Organisation in each year. (6) (a) The principal purpose of the grants were: (i) to provide State Emergency Services accommodation at the local level; (ii) reimbursement of the salaries of permanent staff of the State Emergency Services employed at intermediate headquarters (District, Division or Regional Headquarters); and (iii) provision of emergency equipment for State Emergency Services units; (b) (i) the accommodation grants were received by local government authorities, on behalf of the local State Emergency Services units; (ii) the reimbursements of salaries were received by the NSW State Emergency Services headquarters; (iii) the equipment was received by the NSW State Emergency Services headquarters, for allocation to local units. (c) The accommodation grants totalled $19,534. The funding of equipment and reimbursement of salaries were: Year Equipment Salaries $ $ 1982-83... 5,240 37,221 1983-84... 2,237 37,902 1984-85... 3,252 39,392 1985-86... 5,776 20,840 (d) (i) standing arrangements require a certificate of completion to be provided through the State Emergency Services headquarters to the Natural Disasters Organisation; (ii) the regional officers' performance is continually evaluated by the NSW Emergency Services headquarters; (iii) equipment evaluation in a national and State sense is subject to on-going evaluation at annual conferences of directors of State Emergency Services organisations and at biennial conferences of equipment officers. (7) In respect of specific projects being denied funding the following is applicable: (i) accommodation subsidies-nil; (ii) reimbursement of salaries-not applicable; (iii) equipment is provided to each State and Territory Emergency Service against an annual financial block allocation. Each State Headquarters seeks equipment bids from local units. These bids are refined and consolidated by State authorities prior to submission to the Natural Disasters Organisation. The information sought is not available to NDO nor could it be made available without excessive demands on limited State resources. (8) Not applicable. (9) The information sought in this question is not readily accessible and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the resources of time and money which would be required to provide such information. (10) Each year the Natural Disasters Organisation advises the NSW State Emergency Services on funds availability. Local councils make bids for accommodation subsidies through the NSW State Emergency Services and State Emergency Services units bid on NSW State Emergency Services Headquarters for equipment allocation. (11) (12) and (13) This is a State Emergency Services responsibility.