Wednesday, 19 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I do, and it is urgent that the misrepresentation be corrected. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Denison that the normal time for personal explanations is after the presentation of papers. As it is urgent, he has the indulgence of the Chair to proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. On page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald today in an article by Peter Hartcher on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd takeover, Mr Hartcher asserts that, yesterday, I: . . . tried to slur Mr Robert Holmes a Court by insinuating that he had misled the Cabinet sub-committee which questioned him on his plans for BHP. I take the strongest exception to the use of the words `tried to slur'. I stated the facts. I exposed the truth. Madam Speaker, the truth is, as I said in the House yesterday, that at a point of time the South African giant, the Anglo-American Corporation, using the pseudonym Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd, did own 7,498,000 shares in West Australian Onshore Oil and that was 15 per cent of the total shareholding and made Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd the second largest shareholder, second only to Mr Holmes a Court's Bell Basic Industries Ltd. What I said yesterday was the truth as a check of the position as at 10 January 1982 will clearly prove. Finally, as proof of my bona fides in this matter, I ask the House to note that despite the clear opportunity I had to do so yesterday I deliberately chose not to specifically mention the involvement of the Standard Chartered Bank Ltd, the Standard Bank Investment Corporation, the Standard Bank of South Africa and, most significantly, the Bermudan-based Mineral and Resources Corporation. Madam Speaker, I do not slur; I just prove facts. Madam SPEAKER —I indicated to the House last night that amendment of the guidelines governing the access to proceedings of the House for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts was a matter for consideration in the first instance by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I now advise the House that the Committee met this morning and determined that an additional condition, 5a, should be inserted in the guidelines to the effect that material constituting part of a debate or proceeding in either House that was subsequently withdrawn would not be available for rebroadcast. I add that the Committee was of the opinion that to rebroadcast material that was subsequently withdrawn was not in accordance with guideline No. 5, which states that fairness and accuracy must be observed. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the adoption of guideline 5a places rebroadcast of material in a slightly different position from that adopted by the written record as appears in Hansard. The Committee was of the opinion that a copy of my statement to the House should be forwarded to the broadcasters mentioned by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) in the matter of privilege he raised yesterday. Mr President and I will be seeking discussions with representatives of the Press Gallery as to the operation and observance of the guidelines. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to thank you and the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for consideration of this matter. I am sure the decision taken is in the best interests of this House. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, this is an historic occasion. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the introduction of a democratic, responsible form of government for the Australian Capital Territory. The population of the Australian Capital Territory has been without an effective and representative form of government for over 70 years. It stands as the last remaining significant community in the Western world having no form of local or State administration answerable directly to its people. The Australian Capital Territory was conceived amidst the squabbling between Sydney and Melbourne in the Constitutional Conventions staged in the 1880s and 1890s. A reading of debates of the time the Australian Capital Territory was excised from New South Wales and the historic records show Canberra was not readily accepted, and probably still has not been accepted, as the nation's capital in all parts of Australia. To indicate the depth of feeling, I refer honourable members to the following excerpt from an editorial in the Melbourne Argus newspaper in 1910. It states: Canberra is in a dip subject to intense heat, having a soil too poor for herbage and with no adequate source of water supply . . . The facts suggest that Yass-Canberra is very near to being `no man's land' and no sane people would expend treasure and labour in trying to make a modern city in such surroundings. Canberra is now regarded as one of the best planned cities in the world that all Australians can be proud of. It has a thriving economy and a growing population of over 250,000 people. After the Seat of Government Acceptance Act was passed in 1909 the then residents were struck off the electoral rolls for both State and Federal voting. It has only been in the last 20 years that the people of the Australian Capital Territory were given the right to elect a member with full voting rights in the Federal Parliament. Canberra has always had a battle to gain democratic rights-the opposition reached a peak in 1974 when certain State governments and the conservative parties in this Parliament opposed the Australian Capital Territory's having the right to elect senators. The Bill was taken to a double dissolution; a joint sitting of both Houses and subsequently to the High Court of Australia. `Taxation without representation' is a long-heard and valid catchcry. The people of Canberra have a right and indeed a responsibility, to elect representatives to oversee the spending of the revenue raised in the Australian Capital Territory. The Federal Parliament cannot reasonably provide a forum for decisions which affect the residents of the Territory. Canberra has had a fully elected House of Assembly since 1974, but that Assembly has only advisory powers. It lacks legislative, executive and financial control and accountability. Despite the efforts of the Assembly members-and I note that some former members are now sitting in this Parliament, like my colleague, the honourable member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly and both Australian Capital Territory senators-the Assembly cannot fully represent the Australian Capital Territory community. This Bill will ensure the Australian Capital Territory is properly represented by fully elected representatives of that area. In 1982 the Australian Labor Party made an electoral commitment to bring self-government to the Australian Capital Territory. The Government is now introducing a form of government which allows Canberra's citizens to manage their local affairs while the Commonwealth retains management of the national interests. It is a commitment to an appropriate sharing of functions and responsibilities. The Council will have a wide range of municipal and territorial functions and powers, including welfare, housing, tourism, the environment, water, gas and electricity, public safety, transport, taxation and a range of municipal powers. The Government has taken significant steps to prepare for self-government. We have initiated an integrated budget process to set priorities and allocate resources. We have asked the Commonwealth Grants Commission to conduct an inquiry into the financing of Government services in the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86. The Council can decide to instigate regular reviews by the Grants Commission. Instead of the past situation of an administration divided among a number of Commonwealth departments, there will now be a single, effective administration, in the Council, delivering a wide range of municipal and territorial services. In addition, most remaining Commonwealth functions of a local nature in the national capital have been consolidated in the one portfolio. This will provide for economy in administration and for efficient co-ordination with the Council's activities. The Council will consist of 13 members, 12 part time and a full time chairperson elected at the first meeting. The Government will review the part time status of members at the time it considers the transfer of additional responsibilities to the Council. Members will be elected for a four-year fixed term from single-member electorates by optional preference voting. Honourable members will be aware that this appears to be the main cause of concern voiced against this Bill. The criticism is misguided and underestimates the intelligence of the Australian Capital Territory community. Surely honourable members can recall members from both sides of this House being voted out by the electorate of Canberra in recent times. Single-member electorates will ensure that the duly elected Council members perform and if they do not they will not be re-elected. The system the Government is proposing is the most democratic system for the Australian Capital Territory. It is consistent with the position taken by the Government and the Joint Select Committee on the type of electoral system most suited to elections to the House of Representatives. It accords with the practice in all mainland State lower Houses or single chambers. It allows the electorate to select its representatives in the most direct way, avoiding the complications and uncertainties of other systems. It provides for stable government, yet allows change in voting patterns to be directly reflected in the Council's composition. It provides for small electorates where members' performance can be subject to close scrutiny by the local community. The Bill also provides for public funding for political parties for the first election. The Council will decide its own policy on public funding for subsequent elections. There are also provisions in the Bill dealing with the holding of early elections in extraordinary circumstances. There is provision for an early election in the event of a deadlock being unresolved within 30 days by the Council. There is also provision for the Governor-General to dismiss the Council. This is a power to be used only in an extreme situation-for example, if the Council was unable to govern. The system of government has been designed for the particular requirements of the Australian Capital Territory and therefore has no direct parallel elsewhere in Australia. It protects both local interests and the national interests in the Federal capital. As well as legislative and executive authority for a range of prescribed matters, the Council will exercise executive powers under various Commonwealth laws and through agency and other arrangements made with the Commonwealth. In all the years of debate about self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, the greatest myths have revolved around the question of finances. Canberrans believed they would pay more while the States believed that they were paying for the facilities in the Australian Capital Territory. The studies leading up to the Government's decision have, I hope, exploded most of those myths. The financial aspects of self-government will be satisfactory for both the residents of the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth Government and thus the taxpayer. Commonwealth funding will be guaranteed for the first two years to maintain per capita real standards at the time of transfer, provided the Australian Capital Territory maintains its per capita real revenue effort at the time of transfer. For the following three years funding levels will be agreed with the Australian Capital Territory Council to smooth the transition to financial arrangements consistent with Commonwealth, State and local government financial arrangements and principles of fiscal equalisation. The Commonwealth-Australian Capital Territory financial arrangements will also recognise the unique circumstances prevailing in the Australian Capital Territory. The Council will have the right to apply to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for periodic reviews of its financial arrangements with the Commonwealth. These arrangements will ensure that in financial matters the Australian Capital Territory will be treated as fairly and equitably as any other part of Australia. Most State-type taxes and charges are already levied in the Australian Capital Territory. Revenue-raising powers of this kind will be passed to the new Council. The opportunity is being taken by the Government to rationalise Australian Capital Territory public finance. The co-ordination and integration of the processes of budgeting of Territorial expenditure and receipts which we began last year will continue and be further refined. The Parliament, the Council and the Australian Capital Territory will, as a result, then have information available to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of government in the Australian Capital Territory. While there will be initial costs to be met by the Commonwealth for the establishment and election of the Council, as well as short-term increases in recurrent costs until administrative and staffing arrangements are integrated, these will be kept to a minimum. The Government has taken the opportunity of rationalising planning, development, lease administration and land management. The changed arrangements provide that the Commonwealth and the Council work in partnership. Planning and development will be undertaken by the National Capital Development Commission which will be restructured consistent with this Bill. Parliamentary oversight of the planning of Canberra will remain. However, the newly constituted Commission will be the servant of both the Commonwealth and the Council. The Commission will be required to reach agreement with the Council before proceeding with planning and development proposals. The Bill provides that the Council will not be able to pass laws with respect to the planning of land use or for the development of land, except as may be prescribed by Commonwealth regulation. For efficiency and effectiveness the Government has decided to integrate lease administration with planning. This will be accompanied by changes to planning controls. Land use classifications will be broadened, lease conditions will be standardised and in only a limited number of cases will special lease conditions be applied. Land development and lease marketing will be undertaken by the Commission on a commercial basis-subject to Commonwealth policy directives. Land will be provided to the Commission as equity capital at valuation with development funds being provided from borrowings and sales revenue. These changes will remove this activity from budget cycles, making it more responsive to demand and ending the swings in supply of land to which Canberra has been subject. The question of recognition of the Council's lack of access to, or control over, land revenues will be taken up in the negotiation of the financial agreement with the Council. Details of the Government's approach are contained in a paper entitled `Planning, Development, Lease Marketing and Lease Management'. I seek leave to table this paper and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The paper read as follows- PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, LEASE MARKETING AND LEASE MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE A.C.T. COUNCIL Objectives This paper addresses the relationships that are to apply between the Commonwealth and the ACT Council (the Council) in respect of planning and development and the marketing and management of leases. The underlying objective has been to develop arrangements that are soundly based administratively, which are efficient and which provide appropriate processes of consultation and agreement among the parties with mechanisms for the settlement of disagreement. Propositions To assist in this consideration certain propositions have been identified. This has been on the basis that there will be no change to the existing ACT boundaries, that the Commonwealth and Council will need to establish consultative arrangements with NSW authorities and that the NCDC will need to be restructured. Relevant functions have been defined anew and analysed in the context of: Canberra's role as the National Capital and Seat of Government; the Government's decisions on the functions of the Council; and the needs of clients. The propositions are: 1. To retain the integration of planning and development which has been achieved in the ACT. 2. To have arrangements for consultation and agreement on planning and development between the restructured NCDC (the Commission) and the Council. 3. To establish arrangements for the appropriate setting of priorities and allocation of resources. 4. To integrate land administration with planning and development. 5. To undertake the development and marketing of land on a commercial basis, free from day to day political control but subject to Commonwealth Government policy directives. 6. To provide that the Council is to agree proposals for which it has responsibility for funding, including any capital works undertaken by the Commission on the Council's behalf. 7. To continue Parliamentary oversight of the planning and development of Canberra subject to changes in procedure to take account of the Council's responsibilities. Consideration of Issues 1. Relationship between the Commission and the Council in respect of planning functions to be carried out by the Commission. The existing NCDC Plans System is based on Policy Plans and Development Plans. The System is implemented in several ways including the application of Design and Siting Policies and Development Conditions. Policy Plans comprise statements of objectives with respect to future land use intentions. Development Plans are concerned with implementation, including co-ordination of works and staging, so as to be consistent with Policy Plans. The present structure of the Plans System will need to be changed to reflect the need for the Council to be involved in formulating planning policy. The range of both Policy Plans and Development Plans prepared by the NCDC now extends from an ACT-wide scale to a single block within the City of Canberra. It will not be appropriate after the advent of the Council for Policy Plans to extend to the present level of detail. Policy Plans will be altered to provide clear statements of Commission policy in order that the community would know not only what the policies are but be informed about, and thus understand, their basis. The preparation and presentation of Policy Plans to meet these needs will require two changes. The first is that they will apply only to large scale areas in future. Policy Plans will be prepared to encompass the following: the ACT the Metropolitan Area the Districts (eg Inner Canberra, Belconnen etc) the Neighbourhoods (eg Isabella Plains) The second change to present practice will be to broaden the land use classifications used in Policy Plans. Together these changes will ensure that the format of Policy Plans is appropriate to their purpose, which is to offer clear guidance without unnecessary prescription. In this form, Policy Plans will be clearly distinguished from implementation, which is the function of Development Plans and Development Conditions. It is intended that the preparation and operation of Policy Plans would continue to be the responsibility of the Commission. In order to provide effective participation by the Council in the formulation of planning policy all Policy Plans would become operative only after the agreement of the Council to the Plan. The purpose of Development Plans is to show how the works intended to be undertaken by the Commonwealth, the Council or private enterprise will be constructed in such a way as to be consistent with Policy Plans. Responsibility for the preparation of Development Plans would rest with the Commission. The Development Plans would be the basis of agreement to be reached between the Commission and the Council. Development Plans would be prepared in consultation with the Council to ensure that works proposed by the Council or the Commission on behalf of Commonwealth authorities or private enterprise are properly co-ordinated and their consequences understood. The Development Plan would become the basis of agreements between the Commission and the Council regarding the works for which each accepts responsibility and for the reciprocal consequences of such works including the consequences of works intended to be undertaken by the private sector. Development Plans could cover a wide range of development proposals. Arising from the Plans the precise form of the agreements between the Commission and the Council with regard to these proposals would vary. In some cases agreements on schedules and staging of works may be all that is necessary. In other cases the Development Plan itself may need to be the document which is the subject of agreement. The intention in all cases would be to ensure that the Commission and the Council are aware of the consequences of development actions upon each other's responsibilities and that any conflicts are satisfactorily resolved by consultation. It follows that where significant changes occurred in proposals which had been the subject of a Development Plan then further consultation and agreements would be necessary. Development Plans would be prepared in all cases where the subdivision and servicing of land for urban development is intended. In these cases Development Plans would show the intended sub-divisional layout and the mix and types of housing as well as the layouts of roads and prospective works. These Development Plans would be submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the ACT when the Committee is considering Variations to the Plan of Canberra in order to gazette the relevant roads. There would be a standard form of lease conditions attaching to all leases, specifying such things as duration of lease, land rent and so on; these would be agreed between the Council and the Commission. As well there would be Development Conditions which would be tailored for particular leases and would supplement Design and Siting Policies. In that limited number of cases arising when the general Design and Siting Policies would be inadequate or inappropriate Development Conditions would be used. Development Conditions would be specific to a particular lease and could be either more restrictive or more liberal than general Design and Siting Policies. They would attach to the relevant leases and be prepared by the Commission. Certain classes of development to which Development Conditions would attach such as large scale projects or those of unusual sensitivity would be the subject of a Development Plan and subject to the approval of the Commonwealth and the Council in the light of the impact on each of them. The preparation of Design and Siting policies would remain a responsibility of the Commission but the policies would become operative only after the agreement of the Council. The administration of these policies would continue to be undertaken by the Commission. All development will be subject to building, engineering and environmental standards. At present the NCDC, the Department of Territories, the Department of Housing and Construction and other authorities involved in development, such as ACTEA, construct according to accepted standards. These standards will need to be consolidated and agreed between the Commission and the Council so as to provide the basis of proper co-ordination of the different works responsibilities and a uniform guide to private enterprise. Building Approvals would be the responsibility of the Council. Continuation of the close measure of co-ordination that now exists between the NCDC and the Department of Territories in respect of the application of Design and Siting Policies and Building Approvals would need to carry over to the relationship between the Commission and the Council. 2. Relationship in respect of marketing and management of business and residential leases. For efficiency and effectiveness the Government has decided to integrate lease administration with planning. This will be accompanied by changes to planning. Land use classifications will be broadened, lease conditions will be standardised and only in a limited number of cases will special lease conditions be applied. It was concluded that the functions of lease administration and planning should be collocated in the Commission. The consequences of this collocation are consistency of application and a feed-back from the practical consequences of enforcing conditions to the process of formulating them. The sale of leases and their variation would be undertaken by the Commission with the development and marketing of new estates to be accounted for on a commercial basis subject to policy directives; with land being provided as equity capital at valuation, and funding for development to be obtained from borrowings and sales revenue. The extent to which any development would vary from agreed standards would primarily be a commercial judgment. Where standards were altered, and consequentially affected Council's responsibilities adversely, then full recognition would be given by the Commonwealth to the financial and social impacts on the Council. Redevelopment should also be undertaken on a commercial basis but with accounts separate from those for the development of estates. 3. Related Issues Headworks Water, sewerage and stormwater Headworks (for example, water supply, dams and sewerage treatment works, etc.) are those facilities which will continue to be provided by the Commission as part of land development but whose costs cannot be reasonably recovered from the sale of leases and, as a result, are ultimately recouped from rates. Because the Council is to be responsible for the determination and collection of rates, the Commission will obtain the agreement of the Council for such Headworks and negotiate an appropriate capital contribution from it for capital funding. Consultation Appropriate formal inter-governmental consultative mechanisms will need to be established between the Commission and the Council to facilitate co-ordination and the resolution of disputes. The resolution of disputes will rest with a nominated Commonwealth Minister who, after consultation with the Chairperson of the Council, will either issue a direction to the Commission or go through a formal process of consultation with the Council, depending on his or her judgment as to which course is to be taken. The Minister will be provided with information enabling him or her to have full regard for financial aspects in reaching a judgment. Additional processes of consultation will be necessary so that the views of the Commonwealth, through the Commission or other federal authorities, are fully taken into account by the Council in its actions, including the passage of legislation, that may cause the Commonwealth to incur additional costs (e.g. a Noise Ordinance may add considerably to the costs of construction). Timing It is proposed that arrangements approved by the Government be in place before 1 July 1987 and be reviewed no later than 1 July 1992. Planning Appeals Mechanisms The report of the Administrative Review Council on planning appeals would need to be considered for implementation when decisions on planning responsibilities are made. Mr SCHOLES —The Bill now before the Senate to amend the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 was drafted before the form of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory was decided. The Government will withdraw that Bill. A new Bill to amend the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, will be brought before the House shortly. It will make changes to the corporate structure of the National Capital Development Commission and to its powers and functions, consistent with the changes I have outlined. Management of all land, with the exception of lease administration, will be undertaken by the Council. The Commonwealth has defined nationally significant areas in which it will set the standards and bear the associated costs. In addition, the Commonwealth, for national capital purposes, may desire a higher quality of land management in other designated areas and in such cases will negotiate with the Council on standards and financial responsibilities. I now address individual Parts of the Bill. Part I provides for the usual preliminary matters of commencement and interpretation. Honourable members should note that the Jervis Bay Territory is a separate Commonwealth Territory and is not affected by the Bill. Part II establishes the Council and covers the range of procedural matters necessary for the conduct of the Council's business and proceedings. Part III deals with the election of the Council and redistribution processes. These are consistent with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The Council will not have legislative power to change the electoral system. Part IV covers the Council's legislative heads of power and provides for specific Commonwealth laws, listed in schedules 1 and 2, to be transferred to the Council. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) shall decide whether the Council has power to make a proposed law. This will be a technical, legal decision. The Attorney will not be second guessing the Council's decisions as a government. Members should note that the Council will not be able to establish its own courts but, with the approval of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, can vest jurisdiction in existing courts. Part V will permit the Council to implement its own administration, management and staffing. The Council may establish standing and ad hoc committees to conduct its business. The Council will appoint its most senior executives and provision is made for their remuneration and allowances to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The head of administration will be responsible to the Chairperson for the business of the Council and the general conduct of the Council's administration. The Council will be able to make laws determining the conditions of employment of its employees or those of its authorities. The establishment of separate staffing legislation for the Council will be a very significant task requiring extensive consultation with the Commonwealth and staff organisations. The Commonwealth expects to reach agreement with the Council before it enacts that legislation. To this end, the Bill provides for consultation on staffing, terms and conditions of employment, and industrial questions relating to employees, to take place between the Commonwealth and the Council. In the longer term these consultative arrangements will also ensure that the Council will have regard to the effect of its decisions on the Commonwealth's interests as an employer operating side by side with the Council in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government is concerned to ensure that national wages and industrial relations policies, and its commitment to the prices and incomes accord, are kept clearly in consideration through this consultative mechanism. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act will continue to apply in the Australian Capital Territory. Accordingly, the Council will not have legislative power in industrial relations matters except in relation to its own staff and as may be prescribed. In view of the Council's responsibilities, however, it will be necessary to develop arrangements to ensure that its views on Australian Capital Territory industrial relations issues are taken into account. The Government will be giving further consideration to the appropriate arrangements. Financial and audit provisions are covered in Part VI. The Council will operate its own treasury and accounting system. All Council borrowings will be subject to the Commonwealth's approval. Borrowings may be guaranteed by the Commonwealth and any financial guarantees given by the Council will require Commonwealth approval. The Council can make its own audit law. The Commonwealth would expect this law to be consistent with the high standards of accountability required of the public sector. The Commonwealth Auditor-General shall be the Auditor-General of the Australian Capital Territory Council. The Commonwealth will be able to protect its unique national interests through a variety of mechanisms. If the Attorney-General certifies that in his opinion the Council does not have the power to make a proposed law, it will not come into operation. Commonwealth law is, of course, supreme in those cases where there is an inconsistency between Council and Commonwealth law. The Governor-General will have power to disallow any Council law or bylaw within six months after the law is made. Council law will not bind the Crown unless the Commonwealth so provides by regulation. These protections are essential in the national capital. It is the Government's intention, however, that any potential conflicts between the Council and the Commonwealth be resolved as far as is possible by consultation rather than by legal process. Part VII attends to miscellaneous provisions and constitutional guarantees. The Australian Capital Territory will be brought into line with the States and the Northern Territory by applying the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution, guaranteeing free trade. This will not bind the Commonwealth. Transitional provisions and consequential amendments contained in the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 will ensure a smooth transfer of powers and functions to the incoming Council. Until the Council enacts its own staffing legislation, the Bill provides for staff involved in functions transferred to the Council's administration to be employed under existing Commonwealth legislation and existing awards. The staff therefore retain the normal Public Service conditions of service during this period, including the right to seek promotion or transfer to other Australian Public Service departments and authorities. The Government proposes that the Consequential Provisions Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill be considered in cognate debate. The Commonwealth will negotiate with the Council on arrangements for transfer of functions; application of administrative law; the financial agreement including budgetary arrangements for the remainder of 1986-87; formal consultative procedures; and establishment action. The Commonwealth will also discuss with the States the status of the Council in Commonwealth-State forums and agreements. Following enactment of this Bill the Australian Electoral Commission will initiate the established process of electoral distribution, including public participation, to permit the first Council election to be held in September of this year. It is most important that we adhere to this timetable to give the Council time to complete negotiations with the Commonwealth, take up administrative responsibility, and formulate and introduce its Budget for 1987-88. It will be clear to honourable members that this legislation is both comprehensive and well conceived. It provides for a most democratic, practical and economic form of government for the Australian Capital Territory; it provides an electoral system the same as that available at the Commonwealth and State level; it provides the incoming Council with a wide range of powers and functions; it safeguards the Commonwealth's interest in the national capital; it provides for an efficient and effective administration; it puts the Australian Capital Territory on a proper financial basis, and it protects the interests of those staff who are to be transferred. In short, the residents of the Australian Capital Territory will now be properly and effectively represented in the management of their affairs. The Commonwealth and the Council will work in partnership in the administration and management of the Australian Capital Territory. This is indeed a milestone in public administration in this country. I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(10.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides essential transitional and consequential amendments relating to the establishment of the Australian Capital Territory Council. The provisions of this Bill are largely of a technical nature and are designed to ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities to the incoming Council. Part I deals with commencement and interpretation. Part II deals with transitional matters. It provides for the Minister to convene the Council's first meeting; the Council's law making power during the period between the first election and the formal transfer of functions to the Council; the Council's interim staffing arrangements under the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and the Public Service Act 1922; the status of the nominee of the House of Assembly on the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority following the abolition of that Assembly; the transfer of contracts from the Commonwealth to the Council; Commonwealth indemnification of the Council; exemption from stamp duty on land transferred from the Commonwealth to the Council; and application of the Commonwealth Audit Act 1901. The Commonwealth Audit Act, with appropriate modifications and adaptations, will apply to the Council until its own audit law comes into effect, consistent with the high standards of accountability required of the public sector. Part III effects consequential amendments to the various Commonwealth Acts specified in the Schedule. The amendments principally relate to references to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The Bill provides for the Council's administration to be part of the Australian Public Service until the Council passes its own staffing legislation. Staff will therefore retain their existing rights and entitlements during this interim period. It provides for consultation with the Commonwealth before the Council enacts its own staffing legislation. The Commonwealth expects to reach agreement with the Council before it enacts its own staffing legislation, and appropriate provisions on this matter are included in the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill. Unions and staff associations will also be consulted. I table the explanatory memorandum and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(10.31) —in reply-I would like to express my thanks to those honourable members who participated in the debate on this Bill last evening. A number of matters were raised during the course of discussion. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) made some comments about the search for and recovery of the Pel-Air aircraft off Sydney. That matter is still being investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. The Bureau's report is not complete. In addition, a coronial inquiry is still under way. In these circumstances, I do not believe it is appropriate to comment on some of the matters that were raised. I can assure the House that when these processes have been completed the Government will be looking at the results very carefully with a view to determining what follow-up action, if any, is required. I am able to say in response to the question that was raised about the expertise of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation that the Bureau is not a salvage authority. Its function is to inquire into the causes of the and to try to ascertain the circumstances leading up to air crashes with a view to preventing a recurrence of such accidents. In essence, its task is to make air travel and the operation of aircraft safe in this country. The honourable member for Murray will recall that on 17 January he said that there were alleged statements by departmental officials that there was a budget limitation on the search. He said that this was unacceptable and that I must guarantee that an unrestricted recovery effort would be undertaken. At the time I did not think that that was a very responsible statement to make. It is certainly not a practice that was followed by the honourable member or his colleagues when they were in government. What he said did not add anything of merit or worth to the task that was at hand. I noticed that now the task has been completed successfully he still has some complaint. I think there is very little credibility in the comments that he made, given his comments earlier in the year. Mr Lloyd —What about the crash boats? Mr PETER MORRIS —I will come to the crash boats, if the honourable member will be a little patient. The Pel-Air crash was unusual and, understandably, the Bureau had to bring in salvage expertise as was determined appropriate. This was necessary because of the nature of the crash and, as subsequent events will show-from the nature of the fragmentation of the aircraft-the sonar detection equipment that was here in Australia did not have the capacity to pick up the kind of wreckage in question. But these are all matters that will be dealt with in detail when the Bureau completes its investigation and when the coroner completes his inquiry. The honourable member also commented on the failure of the emergency position indicating radio beacon-the EPIRB. EPIRBs are carried by light aircraft which do not have high frequency radio. The Pel-Air aricraft was a sophisticated jet aircraft which was not required to carry an EPIRB. I think the honourable member has confused EPIRBs with what are called underwater locator devices or ULDs, which are fitted on to the flight data recorder. Honourable members will be aware that the flight data recorder was recovered along with the wreckage. The function of that device is to emit a ping to assist in location of the recorders. In the case of the Pel-Air crash, the recorder had a ULD fitted. However, it was not working after the crash and preliminary investigation indicates that it sustained some damage at the time of impact. But again they are matters that will be looked at and dealt with in detail when the coronial inquiry is completed and when the Bureau's task is completed and reported upon. In respect of the crash boats referred to by the honourable member for Murray, my recollection is that last evening he asserted that there were two crash boats-one under the control of the Department of Aviation. His information was that one of the crash boats was having an engine refit and on the second the engine would not start. I have to say to him that we do not have two crash boats; there is only one crash boat, the Trident, which is owned by the Department of Aviation. The crash boat is located at Mascot. It covers regular public transport passenger movements between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. As the crash occurred just after midnight, the Trident crew had been stood down in the normal course of their duties and were not available. In the event, given that the crash had occurred and the emergency had arisen, the crew were turned out in approximately one hour and participated in the search. I am at a loss to understand the point about the two crash boats. I suggest to the honourable member that, before he makes those kinds of statements in future, it might help if he were to check, as he said last night, on the source of his information. That is as best as I can relate it to him. Another matter that was raised during the debate was the response of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, following the Air India and other incidents that occurred. I can say to the chamber that in 1985 ICAO convened a group of experts in aviation security to conduct a thorough investigation of the annex to the Convention on International Civil Aviation that deals with aviation security. Many of the recommendations of the annex have been upgraded to international standards, which will place an obligation on ICAO member states to implement these standards. Australia, for its part, participated in the ICAO review and strongly supported ICAO's work in this area. ICAO has recently notified all its members of these new provisions. However, Australia has already taken steps to tighten our own security at airports in an endeavour to avoid repetition of the incidents to which speakers last evening referred. With those concluding remarks, I thank the honourable members who participated in the discussion last evening and commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 March 1986, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.39) —The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill has the support of the Opposition. The Bill before the House makes amendments to legislation introduced initially by the Fraser Government which then had, as it does now, the full support of Parliament. The purpose of the proposed amendments and of the Bill in general is to strengthen arrangements for the protection of Australia's fauna and flora and world wildlife generally by improving the effectiveness of our import and export controls. These controls, as proposed in the amendments, cover four main categories. Firstly, it is proposed to make controls on exports and imports of certain specimens more appropriate to their status and circumstances under which they enter trade, such as bringing conditions relating to the export of invertebrates into line with those applying to fish, and providing transitional arrangements in respect of household pets and certain birds acquired before the commencement of the Act. Secondly, it is proposed to simplify and improve administrative procedures where it has been established that this will not weaken the protection afforded to wildlife, such as allowing permits to be issued for the importation under certain circumstances of specimens acquired by individuals before the application of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora. It will also allow multiple transactions, and authorities in certain circumstances may allow an individual to apply for a permit in respect of a specimen surrendered by that person which otherwise would have been forfeited. Thirdly, it is proposed to clarify certain enforcement provisions such as ensuring beyond doubt that an inspector may search all goods on a vessel, unaccompanied or otherwise, and that an inspector may seize an article which includes specimens. Fourthly, it is proposed to provide for increased protection for witnesses involved in proceedings under the Act. The coalition parties have a record of significant legislative achievement in this area of nature conservation. In 1980 we introduced the Whale Protection Act, which prohibits the taking of cetaceans in Australian waters or by Australians elsewhere. We ratified the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. We have promised in our policy when in government to support the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora, which is the CITES Convention and further, we will co-operate with TRAFFIC, which is the trade records analysis of flora and fauna in commerce. We also support the migratory birds agreement with Japan which provides for the protection of many species of migratory birds, and associated research. Australia has traditionally set high standards of protection. In some respects, we have provided world leadership. Unfortunately, because of the sheer size of our continent and the numerous points both of entry and exit, it has been very difficult to police the laws appropriately as they stand from time to time. Despite the efforts of successive Australian governments to eliminate the illegal trade in endangered species, it still continues. This trade in wildlife is a particularly lucrative business. It has been claimed that it is as lucrative as drug trafficking. In fact, both smuggling operations tend to go hand in hand, with the same Asian traffic routes being used to smuggle birds and other wildlife out of Australia and to bring in drugs on the return journey. Each year countless thousands of Australian birds, reptiles and other protected species, including koalas and kangaroos, are being smuggled out of Australia through the Asian points of entry, often to wealthy buyers in the United States of America, Europe and elsewhere. It has been estimated that the annual turnover of this illicit trade is of the order of $40m a year. In the United States, for example, a pair of rare parrots can fetch up to $40,000. Even the common galah, destroyed as a pest on many outback properties of Australia, can sell elsewhere for up to $1,700. One plane load of smuggled birds can be exchanged in Bangkok for a consignment of heroin worth millions of dollars in street value when imported into Australia. In one smuggling operation, which was smashed by the then Australian Customs Bureau, a syndicate netted between $250,000 and $310,000 from birds taken out of the country and $60,000 from a back load of exotic Asian parrots. No one knows the extent of wildlife smuggling out of or into Australia, but clearly it is extensive. As I said earlier it is equally as lucrative as drug smuggling. Only five actual cases of wildlife smuggling have been brought to court since the Act came into force in 1984. That demonstrates quite conclusively the difficulties which we are facing in this country in being able to apply the law. While Customs authorities are responsible for the enforcement of the Act, wildlife is not seen by them as a major search priority. The question therefore has to be asked whether this adequately represents government policy. If it does, clearly, there is little point in the Government claiming to be concerned about the illegal export of Australian animals unless it is prepared to provide adequate resources to ensure that the Act is properly policed. As I said, the reality is that, because of the sheer size of the Australian continent and the many points of entry and exit, this is a difficult function to perform. For example, in the north of Australia we have airport facilities on virtually every outback station. In addition to that, a large number of wartime strips are still serviceable in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and north Queensland. Many of these are in areas where the population density is extremely low. It is a fact that many of these wartime strips in particular are being used for the export of Australian animals and wildlife and, consequently, probably for the import of drugs on a plane's return journey. The difficulties in controlling that number of airport facilities are extreme. Nevertheless, there is no point in simply bringing into this Parliament new sets of amendments to laws unless an equal level of financial and technological skills is to be allocated towards solving or reducing this problem. I shall give one example from the Sydney Morning Herald of the cost or the values of exporting birds, which was demonstrated in an operation smashed by the Customs Bureau, as I have already mentioned. A rather amusing sideline to this event is demonstrated by the fact that the article states: One man was fined in Darwin for attempting to smuggle five live pythons-four of which were found in cloth pouches strapped to his legs and the fifth snake hidden in his underpants. The article continues: Testifying to the scale of money available to bird smugglers, police in Queensland in 1980 were said to be hunting a smuggling ring suspected of having buried $1 million in cash on an island after a boat they had been using got into difficulties. Fearing detection the gang members had reportedly taken the money ashore and hidden it, while releasing their cargo of native birds. With profits from wildlife smuggling almost as lucrative as the drug trade, more smugglers are likely to confine themselves to wildlife, particularly in view of stepped-up Federal and State efforts to combat drug trafficking. In effect, a continuation of lighter penalties for wildlife smuggling amounts to a virtual invitation to entrenched smugglers to make it a growth industry. I am afraid that, at the end of the road, this Parliament and the government of the day have to face the facts that merely amending the law, in cases such as this, will not be an adequate protective device. One has to be prepared to apply levels of sentence which simply make it not worthwhile for those who openly breach the law to run the risk of being caught. While the risks at this stage appear to be extremely low, quite clearly, the law will continue to be breached. The cross-reference therefore between the risk factor as distinct from the size of the profits from breaking the law must be at the basis of determining what level of penalty should be applied. There is absolutely no doubt that the current level of penalties on the export of Australian native birds and wildlife is simply inadequate to act as a serious deterrent to those who wish to make money out of the destruction and massive pain which are being caused to so many Australian animals because of those people who are greedy enough to try to make money at the expense of others. Those people not only are greedy but also are prepared to have young Australians die in their many hundreds because of the importing of drugs on their return journey into this country and the impact that that has not only on the lives of those young Australians but also on the lives of their friends, their families and society as a whole. The need to link the exporting of wildlife on the one hand with the smuggling of drugs on the other is self evident. One cannot be dealt with without the other. The response which the country, and the Government in particular must make, must therefore be correlated to some extent. As I said initially, we do acknowledge the difficulty in the detection of smuggling operations. We recognise the importance of informants to the Australian Customs Service. Therefore, we welcome the amendment to the Bill which provides some anonymity for informants and the protection of witnesses involved in proceedings under the Act. The cases in recent months of people who have been murdered by drug-running operations of the Mr Asia type demonstrate the fact that we are dealing with a type of criminal element which simply goes for the ultimate solution-and the ultimate solution is death. That is what such people are prepared to apply to those who breach their code of ethics. The question is: What are we prepared to do in using the law to defend the community on the one hand and apply the law as the basis of our code of ethics on the other? There is a conflict there, but let it be one which we win because the costs of failure are too grotesque to consider seriously. The amended Bill further simplifies and improves the administrative procedures for the leg- itimate trade in wildlife and at present the procedure for the legitimate transfer of wildlife between designated authorities is tedious, probably unnecessary and does nothing to further the protection of wild species. The amendments liberalise the transfer provisions between zoos and research establishments and allow for multiple import certificates in line with quarantine certificates. This will improve conditions for those who are running long term research programs and give them the convenience of not having to apply for permits for each batch of imports. While these amendments have been described as purely machinery, nevertheless, they give us the opportunity in this Parliament to refer briefly to what is, as I said, a very serious and potentially growing problem. It is a problem of which the nation must be aware and about which the Government of the day must be prepared to use all the strength at its command to stamp out. If we fail to do so, we will see a steady diminution in the quality of Australian wildlife. As I pointed out earlier, the link between drug smuggling into Australia and the illegal export of Australian species of wildlife is too clear and it is not a link which we can watch with equanimity. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.53) —In supporting the amendments to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, I wish to say how glad I am that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has taken the opportunity in this Bill to strengthen the powers of the officials engaged in detecting and prosecuting wildlife trafficking offences. There have been a number of criticisms from various bodies that amendments to existing regulations prevented Customs officers from using the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act to protect the community in matters relating to wildlife. The Minister has made it clear that the amendments would clarify the powers of inspectors in searching baggage and seizing personal property which the inspectors believed was used in an offence. The amendments would ensure that in future the illegal trafficking in fauna would be more liable than at present to prosecution and would increase protection for people who provided information leading to a prosecution. It is important to remember that the wildlife protection legislation, amongst other things, regulates the import and export of live animals other than domestic animals in order to protect endangered species. Penalties of up to $5,000 were imposed on people who were successfully prosecuted under the Act. In an eight month period from May to December 1984, for example, there were 207 seizures of people who were attempting to export fauna. Of these, four were attempting to export live birds. One was attempting to export a live crocodile and one a live lizard. The remaining 201 fauna seizures were non-living. I was interested to note that, of the non-living products, 36 were elephants. Presumably they were not adults, as the mind boggles as to how even a non-living adult elephant could be smuggled through Customs. However, I find myself in agreement with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) in that I believe that a fine of $5,000 is not a sufficient deterrent for the callous smugglers of Australian wildlife. As the Minister has indicated, the main purpose of the Act is to regulate legitimate trade in wildlife and to combat illicit trafficking, particularly of endangered species. I am pleased to note that the Minister has not acceded to the request from traders and farmers to alter existing Government policy on the export of Australian native birds. I am aware of arguments which suggest that controlled legal export would undermine and destroy the illegal trade, that the farmers' problems of crop damage would be alleviated, that export is more humane than current methods of control by shooting or poisoning and that it would prevent the cruelty involved in the smuggling racket. Such arguments may appear superficially attractive, but a more careful examination of the export case reveals severe defects. The present widespread controls are reasonably easy to enforce as opposed to the permitted export of certain species. The checking of consignments would require specialist know- ledge and would be extremely costly to administer. Without such specialist checking it would be relatively easy for a rare and endangered species to be made to look like a common bird species and substituted for export purposes. It also must be said that the argument that we could solve the farmer's pest problem is ridiculous because it would be necessary to export hundreds of thousands of birds to achieve that. We need to undertake more research into avian pests in order to find alternative methods of control to shooting or poisoning. The export of the birds is no realistic solution to the pest problem. In addition, it must not be forgotten that the export of birds considered by farmers to be pests in Australia could be considered irresponsible overseas in view of the possibility that such species would become pests in overseas countries. It has been argued that a charge on the cost of export of birds and other animals could be used to fund animal conservation research. I find this argument particularly weak as there would be little revenue to be gained from such a source and, in my view, it would be the dealers who would gain from the export of wild animals, and not the conservation movement. I agree with the Minister that this Bill is an important piece of legislation as it will help to protect Australian wildlife, particularly the endangered species. Unfortunately, the resources available for the conservation of Australia's wildlife are extremely limited and there are problems in the priorities for the allocation of resources. Endangered species, as well as all other species of native wildlife, are part of our natural heritage. In my view it is necessary to prepare a framework for endangered species' habitat protection. I would hope that the Minister would consider the preparation of such legislation to compliment the present Bill. I am pleased to support the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.58) —As the first speaker from the bush to rise to address the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill, I would like to emphasise the need to create another export industry for our brothers on the farm. Australia is blessed with many unusual species of flora and fauna not found in any other parts of the world. As we have seen with the popularity of the koala and the frill-necked lizard in Japan, our native animals are keenly sought by zoos all over the world. Our Western Australian wildflowers are a thriving export industry, creating wealth and jobs for the growers as well as for the economy of the State. Butterflies are being cultivated and exported from northern Queensland, a unique and enterprising venture. Why, I ask myself, cannot other species so uncommon to other parts of the world, be harvested in a sense for the world market? The Bill mentions that the export of cultivated giant clam spats will be allowed to other countries in the Indo-Pacific region. This is to allow them to re-establish their seriously depleted stocks. I commend this move as the clams will offer the people of this region a rich source of vital food and nutrition. However, I can see other possibilities for enterprising individuals who are willing to take a risk and create new industries for our export markets. In my electorate of Groom, at a place called Murphys Creek, outside Toowoomba, there is a thriving business in the cultivation of the native flora Geraldton Wax. For many years this species was confined to the narrow region of Western Australia, but now it is growing prolifically in many other areas of the country and currently it is being exported to the United States of America. It is highly prized as a decorative ornament in the homes of many Americans. The freshwater crocodile was placed under protection in 1974 by the Commonwealth. As a result of this protection the number of crocodiles has increased to the point where commercial farms are now operating in the far north of Queensland. The strict control and proper management of this species played a positive role in the total conservation strategy which allowed this export market to be reopened. I do not want to see our native flora and fauna overexploited for the purposes of international trade. I do want, however, to see our endangered, vulnerable and rare species encouraged to survive and to proliferate to the point where they are no longer in danger of extinction. The awareness of the need for a delicate balance in nature has come too late for six species of wallabys which have disappeared since 1875, with the last sighting of one of the species being in 1935. There are two species of bandicoots which have not been sighted since 1926 and 1931 respectively. The thylacine-the Tasmanian tiger-was last seen authentically in 1933. Closer to home, the Darling Downs hopping mouse has not been seen since the Leslies settled the Downs in 1840. This shows that species do become lost. Several of our flora are also on the endangered list of the world wildlife fund. The Monterey cypress is on the rare list, while the Norfolk Island pine and the dragon's tree are on the vulnerable list. The honey myrtle is not technically endangered, except in areas of Western Australia where the wheat belt extends into the State. There is encouraging news coming out of botanical gardens right around the world. The Kew Gardens horticulturalists have collated a list of rare and endangered plants now in cultivation in the major international botanical gardens, so encouraging the maintenance and exchange of genetic material. Australian botanical gardens are also making their contribution to this work. It is my view that individuals could also help to contribute to the program, not only for plants but also for the birds and reptiles so unique to our island continent. I take the opportunity of paying tribute to a great Australian and a great Australian family. I refer to Lance Cockburn and his family of Brookvale Park outside Oakey on the Darling Downs. They come from a long line of pioneering families from the Darling Downs. They have a most valuable piece of real estate, worth, I suspect, well over half a million dollars. They gave in trust the total land in Brookvale Park, where they are propagating native plants and native trees and preserving endangered species. It is not very often in this modern society that we see people who are prepared to give generously of their resources and their material benefits to ensure that endangered species continue to live. I have been present at Brookvale Park on many occasions and I am always enlightened and always proud to note their many splendid achievements. They have propagated many hundreds of species of plants and trees. We must realise that already 500 species of trees in Australia have been lost. There are 2,000 species on the endangered list. Mr Nehl —How many? Mr McVEIGH —Two thousand species on the endangered list and 500 species have already been lost. Lance Cockburn quite often goes all over Australia, camping out in the desert, to get rare seeds and plants, which he propagates. It is a most beautiful sight to see a species such as the chinchilla white gum, which had been virtually lost for 40 years, now thriving because of the care and attention of Lance Cockburn and his family. I think it is about time that fellow Australians took time to acknowledge people such as the Cockburn family for their interest, their concern and their feeling that we should preserve forever our beautiful native flora and fauna. Lance Cockburn is not only an expert on trees but also an authority on koalas and their feeding habits. Most people think that the koalas live only on a certain type of tree. Cockburn has proved that that is a fallacy. He knows the breeding habits and the eating habits of wallabies and kangaroos. These are the types of people that we should be paying tribute to. I am quite proud and happy to take up a few minutes of the time of this national Parliament to have recorded indelibly in Hansard, never to be erased, the contribution of Lance Cockburn and his family and those many other splendid people who make up what is called the Brookvale Park Trust. I also want to instance the need to preserve the tulip oak and rose mahogany. The new Parliament House, which is rapidly taking shape, is to have tulip oak in its chamber for the use of honourable members. This rare species of tree, tulip oak, which is grown on the Great Dividing Range outside Killarney-which was represented for some years by myself-and which is rapidly becoming extinct. Whoever the next Prime Minister of Australia might be-and I would not want to pass any comment on that at this stage-will have a desk carved out of rose mahogany wood, a very rare species at present being milled in the saw mills of Killarney. The wood will be coming here to make up the desk for the Prime Minister. Rose mahogany wood grew prolifically in the Darling Downs area 40 years ago; now the Department of Forestry in Queensland is refusing to allow any more of that magnificent wood to be cut down. You will be delighted to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the saw millers at Killarney saw fit to give to me, so that I can have it polished and preserved as part of my treasured memories, a piece of the tree which is to be used to make the desk for the Prime Minister of Australia. Cedar, which is probably a better wood than rose mahogany, could not be used. That is always under debate by amateurs and others who seek to use great timbers for their carving. Some people say that cedar has a nicer red grain than rose mahogany, but it is soft and more easily injured. Rose mahogany, probably like the good residents of the Darling Downs, is made of tougher and sterner stuff; it is a bit harder to dent. I pass those things on because of the fact that these are rare species; they are endangered species and, unless we take positive moves like the Cockburn family and others, these species will disappear. Whilst it would be great for all Australians to have the opportunity of coming into Parliament House and seeing the beautiful rose mahogany of the Prime Minister's desk-timber grown on the magnificent part of the world called the Darling Downs-I suspect the Prime Minister of the day might not have enough time to ensure that the 16 million people of Australia have the opportunity of seeing this beautiful timber. Alternatively, they can come to my office in Toowoomba and see a very small piece of it polished, and it will be polished and cut by me. We have some of the most unusual and beautiful birds in the world. The budgerigar, a humble household pet prized for its colourful feathers, would be an attractive export, given the proper circumstances. I congratulate the Government on the sense of warmth that it has shown in this amending legislation to allow people who have got these pets to export and import them, just as I fully appreciate and support its sense of interested concern about people who have family heirlooms made out of the skins of rare and endangered animals which have been handed down by generations, and who, up to the present, have not been allowed to bring them in. I fully congratulate and support that type of thinking. The cockatoo is a pest in our agricultural areas, but a prime illegal export commodity for smugglers. There is an opportunity for people to export cockatoos providing the birds are bred in captivity. I support the previous speaker, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who said that we do not overcome the problem of plagues in mammoth proportions by saying that we are going to export cockatoos. It is said that the rare peregrine falcon could fetch up to $60,000 on the black market in the Middle East. I suspect that it is a lot better for us legally to be getting $60,000 from an Arab sheik rather than having someone smuggling that rare bird overseas. These are just a few examples of the potential we have here for a thriving new industry. I reject totally the rather innocuous interruption made earlier by those who sit on the Government benches temporarily who said that they do not believe in encouraging the export of cockatoos. I believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging the export of native fauna and flora, provided that they are bred or grown in the right environment and provided, most importantly, that they are exported under such conditions that they will not be dead when they arrive on the other side of the globe. The survival rate of smuggled birds is alarmingly low. Estimates put the death rate as high as 90 per cent. That is particularly unacceptable to me, and I suspect that it is unacceptable to all members of the Parliament. The trapping and shipping of live species contribute to the extinction of many rare species. The penalties as set out in the Bill are sufficiently high, I believe, to discourage some smuggling. But this does not save our endangered species. We need to look at encouraging farmers and businessmen with a sense of enterprise to see the cultivation and breeding of our native flora and fauna as a potential export industry. We need the Government to take a fresh look at the situation in two areas. The first is to allow the commercial propagation of endangered, rare and vulnerable native species. As I said initially, this has been done with the Geraldton wax, the Cooktown orchid and, of course, the freshwater crocodile. When such an industry is firmly established, a levy could be placed on all exports to advance the natural re-establishment of our endangered species into their native areas. Of course, as is the case with research into wheat or any of the other research programs in Australia, there should be a balancing Federal Government contribution. Maybe it would even encourage the States to get involved. It is terribly important that these endangered species are allowed to be re-established in their natural environment. We have not achieved any- thing if we believe that we can preserve endangered species wholly in hothouses or in gardens in the suburbs or on farms. All of these things need to be re-established in their natural environment from which man has plundered them and taken them away for the last several decades. We need to realise that what may be this country's pest is another country's rarity. However, words and legislation are simply not enough. It seems to me that if we are fair dinkum about preserving our endangered species we need to institute an education program aimed at informing the general populace about which of our species are endangered. The best place for this to begin is in our schools, with lectures on which animals are on the endangered list, those that are dangerous and should be left alone under any or all circumstances, and those that are harmless. The proper identification of such species by the individual is important. We would not like to see the wilful destruction of harmless creatures because of ignorance. Let us be honest and frank: Those of us who have experience with animals, and maybe a certain concern for them, know full well that no animal or reptile will attack unless the animal or reptile is provoked. People need to be aware of this fact. Mr Slipper —What about the crocodile? Mr McVEIGH —It is all right for the honourable member to come up with that type of interjection. He obviously does not know what he is talking about. The simple fact is that, if one invades the crocodile's territory, it will attack. It is an act of provocation. I feel very strongly about these types of issues. Many people start to make rather stupid interjections which bear no relation to the facts and which do not stand up to the facts. I think it is about time that some of those people woke up to themselves and at least approached them on a fair basis. Mr Charles —Does that extend to your side, Tom? He's leaving you. Mr McVEIGH —He should stay and learn a bit. People need to be aware of the fact that invasion of its territory is an act of provocation and could result in tragedy, as we have seen recently in northern Queensland. If people do not understand that, quite frankly I do not think we have much hope of preserving our endangered species. Therefore, I call upon this Government, in association with all people in Australia, on a total support basis, to take positive action towards controlling the destruction of our native flora and fauna. I believe that national pride concerns not only our country and our flag. If we truly believe in national pride, we must have national pride in our native flora and fauna. That is of great importance. It appears to me that we must begin to instil this pride in our children. Our children, in fact, all of us, must have a respect for our native animals and flowers for what they are-our national symbols. We should instil a philosophy of preservation and not destruction, of caring and not neglect. This can begin with the implementation of legislation which encourages our countrymen to take greater care to preserve their heritage. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.16) —It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) said in his second reading speech, the purpose of the Bill is to address legal and administrative needs which have become evident in the operation of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. I congratulate the Minister for drawing the attention of honourable members to the necessity for these amendments and for his support for the amendments. The Wildlife Protection Act 1982 enabled Australia to meet international obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife, fauna and flora, under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, that is, CITES. In 1973, Australia and about 70 other countries negotiated the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The Convention, as I have already said, is commonly known as CITES. It arose from world-wide concern about the adverse effects of unregulated trade on the world's wildlife. Australia ratified CITES in 1976 upon promulgation of the Customs regulations. Those regulations and the prohibited imports and prohibited exports regulations under the Customs Act and various Acts and ordinances relating to Australia's external territories provided the then legislative basis for the control of overseas trade in wildlife. It is pleasing to note that when the Wildlife Protection Act 1982 was introduced in this place on 18 August 1982, it received bipartisan support. I know that this amendment Bill will likewise receive support from honourable members opposite. The concept of conservation on a world scale is indeed a very worthwhile concept. Protection of and concern for an endangered species should not be left to individual countries to determine. It is a matter of great concern to communities across the globe. People from different regions often have valuable contributions to make towards conservation of the flora and fauna of other nations. A fine example of this can be gleaned from the speech of the honourable member for Robertson, the present Minister, in this place on 18 August 1982, when he drew the attention of honourable members to the fact that, had it not been for President Hoover, who lived here for some years in the latter part of the last century and who developed an affection for the Australian koala, it is likely that there would be no koalas left in Australia today. It was President Hoover who in the 1930s banned the import of koala fur by the United States and thus ended the devastation of Australia's koalas by not providing a market. The amendments proposed in this Bill can be grouped into four categories. Specifically, they are: To make controls on export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade; to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have already proved in practice to be unnecessarily complex; to clarify and tighten certain enforcement provisions; and to increase protection for those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. I will refrain from going through each of those points as they have been well canvassed by previous speakers. However, I am compelled to comment on recent reports I have read concerning the illegal trafficking and smuggling of wildlife. I draw the attention of honourable members to an article by Mr Bob Bottom which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 July 1985. It referred to Vincent `Big Vinnie' Theresa, a New York Mafia boss turned FBI informer, who took it upon himself to warn that bird smuggling from Australia was getting bigger and bigger in the midst of organised crime. In a telephone interview in 1979, Theresa said bird smuggling from Australia had become interlinked with drug trafficking involving United States Mafia interests. Bird smuggling is a big business involving millions of dollars of illicit profits and pitiful treatment of captured wildlife. Smuggling of birds and other wildlife can be as lucrative as drug trafficking. Each year countless thousands of birds, reptiles and other protected species, including the koala and kangaroo, are smuggled out of Australia through Asia for sale to wealthy buyers in the United States of America and Europe. The annual turnover has been estimated at about $40m. I am sure honourable members can appreciate the enormity of an illicit industry that has an estimated annual turnover of $40m. According to Mr Bottom, Theresa was named as the American connection for Australian bird smuggling and in December 1984 was indicted in Philadelphia on charges of conspiracy to smuggle rare birds to the United States. It has been stated that the Bill provides severe penalties which are appropriate to the high potential rewards involved in wildlife trafficking. I believe that the penalties do not go far enough. I draw the attention of the House to an article in the West Australian of 22 September 1985 by Mr Alex Harris. Mr Harris writes that the professional smuggler on the other hand can operate the year round, mostly trafficking in adult birds. He buys them through normal channels or traps them himself and then sells them. Again, the losses of animal life are high, but the profits make it worthwhile. Mr Harris informs us that the going rate for a pair of eastern States palm cockatoos, Eclectus parrots or Western Australian red tailed black cockatoos is said to be about $17,000 and for a single corella about $3,000. According to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service annual report for 1984-85, successful prosecutions relating to the illegal export of Australian native fauna were initiated during the year. Two of those prosecutions were heard as indictable offences, related to the attempt to export Australian native birds and Australian native reptiles. Penalties of up to $5,000 were imposed. When one compares the value of a pair of cockatoos or parrots at $17,000 with, firstly, the chance of being caught and, secondly, being fined only $5,000, one sees that this hardly acts as a deterrent. I would like to see a toughening up of the provisions in the Bill relating to the prosecution of illegal wildlife traffickers. These smugglers must be stopped before endangered species are completely gone. The plight of the endangered orange bellied parrot deserves a mention here. The orange bellied parrot is one of Australia's rarest and most endangered birds, with less than 200 individuals now surviving. Across Port Phillip Bay from my electorate of Dunkley, the area of Swan Island and Swan Bay is one of the habitats of the orange bellied parrots. The urgent need to ensure the protection of this habitat is paramount. We must make certain that these birds cannot be plundered by illegal traffickers in wildlife. If we do not have legislation, these endangered species will be lost forever; a loss not only to us in Australia but to the whole world. I was shocked and amazed recently to read in the Canberra Times of 3 March 1986 a statement by the Opposition spokesman on trade, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). He is attributed as supporting a statement that the Government should lift bans on the export of non-endangered native bird species. The honourable member for Dawson went on to say: Such a move would also help eliminate cruel trapping and shipping practices which occurred when birds were smuggled . . . The controlled export of species which were in plague proportions would also help reduce crop damage and thereby aid another export industry. The honourable member for Dawson said also that it was unfortunate that the Government remained firmly committed to a policy of almost total prohibition of native bird exports. He said: . . . this dogmatic and blinkered ideological persistence with a non-export policy is only resulting in the capture and wanton killing of species which are agricultural pests . . . I find it quite sad that the honourable member for Dawson has to resort to the use of such antiquated and emotive terms as `dogmatic' and `blinkered ideological persistence'. I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition, especially in view of its recent introduction of waste watching, would encourage the Government to introduce measures that would be extremely costly to administer. As the Minister has clearly stated on this matter, the Government would have to train staff so that it could station bird identification experts at international airports to prevent rare and endangered species, which may be difficult for a non-expert to tell apart from common species, being taken out under some cover or guise. The honourable member's proposal could open a Pandora's box of new opportunities for organised crime to take advantage of and misuse legal trade. Apart from this, I fail to see how the honourable member could contemplate that the Government should do anything contrary to the spirit of CITES to which, as I have already stated, Australia is a signatory. I am sure that all honourable members are aware that CITES prohibits its signatory countries from exporting and importing threatened species and also discourages any trade in wild animals, except for scientific, zoological and other specific purposes. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) mention education in our schools. I take this opportunity to mention the excellent work that is being done in our schools in educating young people on the benefits of our unique flora and fauna. My daughter Jane attends the Frankston Heights Primary School. Last year, her fourth year at school, one of the projects she did was on endangered species, the endangered bilby. It has inculcated in her and her fellow classmates an appreciation for endangered animals. I publicly thank the teachers of Frankston Heights Primary School for making those who will take over the stewardship of Australia aware of this problem. I am sure that what Jane has learnt in her formative years at that school will be passed on to her children in time and gradually the majority of Australians will appreciate our animals. I applaud the honourable member for Groom for his statements on the problem of crocodiles in North Queensland. On Sunday night I happened to see part of a show called 60 Minutes. During that show there was a segment on a person who has some very blinkered and bigoted views as to what should happen to crocodiles in that area. I believe that crocodiles are an endangered species which should be looked after in Australia. We have a great opportunity here, as the rest of the world is exploiting its animals, not to exploit these animals. We are a wealthy country; we can set aside areas for crocodiles and they should be left in peace. If their numbers do increase greatly, maybe then they can be shifted to various parts of Queensland but they should not be shot out indiscriminately, as some people in Queensland are advocating at the moment. I am extremely pleased that this Government takes the issue of the protection of wildlife with regard to import and export regulations so seriously. I congratulate and applaud the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment for the steps he has taken through these amendments to tighten up existing problem areas. I am sure that these measures will do much to enhance the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act and I trust that the Government will continue to address the problems of wildlife protection, of exports and imports, as the need arises. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(11.31) —My contribution to this debate on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill will be centred on the failure of the Government to allow the export of Australia's fauna and flora. In reply to the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), who was rather critical of a recent statement by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), I remind him that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation-an all-party committee of this Parliament which contained as members myself, Mr Marshall Baillieu, Liberal, Victoria; the Hon. Moss Cass, Labor, Victoria; the honourable member for Mallee, Mr Peter Fisher, National Party, Victoria; the Hon. Harry Jenkins, Labor, Victoria; Mr Simon, Liberal, Victoria; the honourable member for Sturt, Mr Wilson, Liberal, South Australia; and the honourable member for Port Adelaide, Mr Young, Labor, South Australia-brought down a report in September 1976 that advocated very strongly the controlled export of fauna and flora from this country. The failure of this Government to allow the controlled export of fauna in particular is tantamount to encouraging bird and animal smuggling from this country. I suggest to the House that the Government has failed to pick up the sound advice given in a unanimous report by the House of Representatives committee back in 1976. Mr Barry Jones —Not just this Government, then. Mr HODGES —No, not just this Government, as the Minister mentions, because the previous Fraser Government also refused to pick up what I believed was sound and logical advice. I want to read to the House the first two of four recommendations in that Committee's report which deal with import and export policy: (i) the export policy be relaxed to allow government controlled export to individuals and institutions of all common aviary bred birds uncommon aviary bred birds which are ringed or banded and registered with a State fauna authority wild trapped common and pest species of birds provided that (a) such birds are trapped under the control of a State fauna authority; and (b) harvesting is based on sound conservation principles; (ii) (a) the export policy be relaxed to allow government controlled export of mammals and reptiles to acceptable overseas recipients; and (b) the category of acceptable overseas recipients be considerably widened to include approved private zoos and parks, whether run for profit or not I believe, after many months of deliberations by that Committee and after speaking with hundreds of people on the issue, looking into all of the problems that exist in relation to the smuggling of birds and animals out of this country and in many instances the importation of drugs and illegal immigrants as backloading on aircraft and sea-going vessels, that those recommendations are very sound and ought to have been adopted by the previous Government and ought to be adopted by this Government. There is ample evidence, stretching back over decades, of fauna smuggling across the length and breadth of this nation. There have been lots of successful prosecutions but additionally much evidence has failed to produce successful prosecution. Nevertheless, the fact remains that bird and animal smuggling rackets have been going on in this country for decades. Let me relate to the House some of the cases that have been reported. A cargo of 900 Australian birds was seized in Cairns in 1979, just before shipment. The birds were estimated to have an overseas black market value of more than $2m. Pairs of live Australian parrots have been sold overseas for up to $10,000 while sulphur crested cockatoos could fetch a price of $5,000. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Dunkley, mentioned an article by author Bob Bottom. Some of the extracts from his book refer to an annual turnover estimated at $40m. The article states: In the US, a pair of rare parrots can fetch $10,000. Even taipan snakes and green tree pythons can sell for $1,000 each. There is reference to the fact that 12 crates of animals were loaded into a container at Sydney Airport. The article further suggests that a shipment was foiled just prior to its proposed date of departure from Cairns. This shipment was to have been flown to Indonesia by way of a DC3 aircraft across the top of Australia. So there is ample evidence. In November 1982 the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), answered a question in this Parliament by stating that a total of 107 people had been apprehended for smuggling Australian birds, animals and reptiles in the seven years since 1975. The answer went on to list some of the details of the types of animals and birds that had been smuggled out of the country and the prices that they would bring overseas. That demonstrates quite clearly that a large illegal industry is operating out of this country and it is up to the Government to recognise that fact and move to rectify the problem. We have exotic and not so exotic animals and birds in this country that are widely sought after by overseas collectors. In the inquiry undertaken into the trafficking in fauna in Australia many witnesses talked of the stamp collectors syndrome-in other words, many people throughout the world want to get these exotic species of Australian wildlife and they will pay very high prices for them. They are connoisseurs of the exotic and, as I said, it was often stated that the stamp collectors syndrome persists in many people. They will obtain those birds and animals regardless of whether we have an export policy. I suggest to the Government and to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who I know has a deep interest in this subject, that if we allow controlled export we will certainly reduce the number of illegal rackets taking place. How do these smugglers operate? They operate by conventional methods; that is, through Australian airports. There are plenty of examples of false compartments in suitcases and the like, of people taking out numbers of birds and animals in large overcoats and so forth. The death rate of birds and animals being carried out in those circumstances is very high. Mr Barry Jones —Did you see the film Gorky Park? Mr HODGES —I cannot say I did. But that is the small-time operation where people carry birds and animals on their person from the country. I am more concerned about the large scale operations that happen in northern Australia. We have 20,000 kilometres of coastline and it is impossible to increase surveillance to an effective level. One would have to give credit to the present Government for at least increasing the surveillance in northern Australia. This was one of the recommendations that came out of the Committee report. Gradually over the years we have seen an improvement in the surveillance of Australia's coastline. Many people in this country do not understand that there are more than 800 airfields in a line between Gladstone in Queensland and Geraldton in Western Australia on which light aircraft can land quite safely and take off again for overseas destinations. Most of those airstrips are not manned. Very few of them are in commercial use today. Indeed, many of them are disused wartime airstrips and airstrips associated with grazing properties. It is very easy for smugglers to use light aircraft to come to Australia's northern shores in particular or to use sea-going craft to enter the thousands of bays and inlets that afford them easy protection and allow them to load birds and animals for transport to overseas destinations and at the same time backload with drugs and illegal immigrants. There is plenty of evidence over many decades of the activities of these people. Many of the previous speakers in this debate have talked about the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which is abbreviated to CITES. I suggest to the House that apart from Appendix 1 of the Convention, which talks about endangered species, there ought to be provision in other appendices for the taking of categorised species from the wild. Of course, some of those species are in pest proportions. There is no logic in the argument that there would be difficulties in exporting animals and birds from our airports. We could use the existing facilities that we have in the national parks and wildlife services of the States. The individuals who take species from the wild could be registered and all birds and animals that are to be exported could be handled through State national parks and wildlife services. Thousands of people around this nation breed many of the sought after birds and animals in captivity. I see no reason why the species that are bred in captivity could not be exported under control. In my view this Government could meet the conditions of CITES in relation to endangered species. It could provide a service to overseas people who desire these birds and animals. It could provide some income for people of this country. It could also direct income, or part of the income, towards nature conservation right across the nation. The Government could alleviate some of the problems that have built up in respect of pest species. After all, many of the species that are sought after by people overseas and for which fairly substantial prices are paid are just pest species that many farmers and graziers throughout this country would like to see reduced substantially. Just as I believe that the Government has adopted a sensible approach in relation to the culling of certain species of kangaroos, I believe it would be possible to adopt a sensible approach in the culling of some pest species. It is interesting to read a Press statement that was put out by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) on behalf of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, or CONCOM as it is known. The statement points out that the Council reaffirmed its ban on the live export of Australian fauna, including aviary bred and pest species of birds. It talks about insurmountable problems that would confront any attempt to open an export trade. I suggest to the House that there are no insurmountable problems in relation to the implementation of an export trade. The Press release talks about prohibitive administrative costs. This is not so. It talks about an unacceptably high mortality rate of up to 80 per cent of native birds exported. Once again, I would suggest to the House that, under proper conditions, this is not an argument against the relaxation of our policy. So, all in all, I believe that a lot of illogical arguments were put forward in that Press release. It is also interesting to note that the conservation Ministers from Queensland and the Northern Territory rejected the motion which came from the Commonwealth and the remaining States. So, there is no unanimity of view on this subject from Ministers or, obviously, their departments right throughout the country. Finally, I would like to reiterate what I said earlier about the failure of the Government to allow the controlled export of certain of our species. It is my view that the Government is aiding and abetting the smuggling of birds from this country. But worse than that, one has to consider the cruelty to the animals that are being smuggled. I am sure that all people concerned about cruelty to animals will realise what I am talking about when I refer to the known death rates associated with the illegal export of birds and animals from Australia. Apart from that aspect, which is very important, I want to emphasise that there are greater dangers in the importation or the backloading of many hard drugs and, of course, the undesirable practice of bringing in illegal immigrants. That point cannot be stated too strongly. So I call on the Government to review its policy in regard to CITES and the export of non-endangered species. I believe that not to do so would be doing a great service to the smugglers and a great disservice to the vast majority of people who could gain some income and some benefit from the controlled export of so many of our species. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.48) —I hold in high regard the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), who has just resumed his seat. However, I found it difficult to sit for 20 minutes and listen to the proposals that the honourable gentleman put forward. It seems to me that whilst he was couching his comments in very carefully selected words, what he was really saying to the people of Australia, and certainly to this Parliament, was that we ought to throw out the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act which we are seeking to amend. This Act is a very important piece of legislation. In fact, it plays the central role in the protection of Australia's wildlife. It contributes to the protection of wildlife not only in Australia, South East Asia and the South Pacific but also throughout the world. We are part of the international agreement. This Act in fact is a major element in this Government's very important conservation program. It has enabled Australia to meet its international obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife. So I find it quite disturbing to have heard the honourable member for Petrie advocate that we ought to cast aside the real protections that exist in this Act and allow the commercial exploitation of rare species of flora and fauna. Mr Hodges —That is not what I said. Mr WRIGHT —Well, that is what the honourable member is saying. I said that he couched his comments carefully. I know that he said that we may in fact overcome some of the smuggling problems. But the honourable member accused this Government of aiding and abetting smugglers. Mr Hodges —Exactly. Mr WRIGHT —Well, I think the honourable member stands condemned for that. He is saying that we ought to permit the export of rare flora and fauna for commercial purposes. He kept stressing-- Mr Hodges —Non-endangered species. Mr WRIGHT —Well, let us start looking at that question because for a start the law allows the export of flora and fauna for zoological purposes-for zoo to zoo transfers-and for scientific research. Permits can be given in these circumstances. Not only this Government but previous governments have been strong and solid in their attitude that rare species shall be protected. The point made by the honourable member for Petrie is that, if we allow commercial exploitation, smuggling will be cut down. I have received some advice on this aspect. It would seem from the experiences of countries where there is a live bird trade that the problem is not overcome but that, instead, smuggling tactics are developed and increased and where birds are allowed to be exploited and exported, there are substitution and forgery rackets. I just do not believe the points put forward by the honourable member for Petrie ought to be accepted, especially since it is not the everyday bird that is smuggled. I hope it is not official Liberal Party policy. If it is, let us go to the people of Australia. Let us test out the views of the ordinary person as to whether he wants to have exploited the rare birds of Queensland-the honourable member is a Queenslander-such as the red-tailed black cockatoo and whether he wants to see no controls over the golden shouldered parrot. Mr Hodges —Stop misrepresenting me. Speak the truth. Mr WRIGHT —I am speaking the truth. The honourable member is saying that we ought to allow the commercial exploitation of flora and fauna. Is that correct? Mr Hodges —Of certain non-endangered species. Mr WRIGHT —I totally disagree with the honourable member for Petrie. I believe that we ought to be doing everything we possibly can to ensure that our rare species are protected. I just cannot accept the point that has been made. I note that the comments made by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) certainly counter what the honourable member has said, too. The whole purpose of the legislation before the House is to regulate legitimate trade in wildlife and to combat illicit trafficking in wildlife, particularly endangered wildlife species. We know that it is a profitable industry and that Queensland has suffered greatly. The honourable member for Dunkley put a figure on it, he quantified it, and said that the illicit trade is worth approximately $40m. He also went on to explain that there were criminality links-that criminal organisations on a world-wide basis had a direct link with the exploitation of wildlife. Again, both the honourable member for Petrie and the honourable member for Dunkley raised the link with drugs. This has also been brought to my attention. For this reason we ought to get tougher, not soften the approach of the legislation before us or pursue the Petrie line. Instead, we ought be saying that we are going to get tougher. What is rare and unique to Australia ought to be kept just that way. To achieve this we not only need law, tough penalties and deterrents, but we certainly need to increase the risk of apprehension. This whole matter concerns me. We do have State, Federal and local government co-operation and support, but it is my opinion that we will have to intensify this co-operation and the monitoring and policing because, despite the law that exists, despite its upgrading and despite the link that it has internationally, we still have a problem, certainly in country areas of Queensland. I spoke to some National Park and Wildlife and Primary Industry personnel today and it was pointed out to me that the hooded parrot of Queensland and the gang-gang cockatoo are still at risk. The Major Mitchell cockatoo is, again, at risk, as are crocodiles and snakes. It is so simple to export Australian snakes by putting them in Australia Post padded bags. To come to the aspects of flora, apparently the Cooktown orchid again is at risk. Let us get tougher. Let us not reduce and soften the approach. This cannot be done merely by having laws on the statute books. It is not good enough just to have deterrents by way of penalties; we need to have a community involvement. It amazes me that we can have trafficking going on, but no one seems to notice. It amazes me that people can go through country areas trapping birds and animals, but no one seems to notice. It amazes me that these animals and birds can be kept near ports in major cities for a time and no one seems to notice. I suggest that, if anything, we need to develop a major community awareness. We need to awaken people to what the laws and rules are and to the importance of protecting Australian flora and fauna. We need to promote a community alertness, especially in rural areas, whereby members of the community keep a watchful eye. I am not saying that they should become dobbers, although in these instances I do not think the community would mind if these types of criminals were dobbed in. If a person in a rural area sees someone trapping cockatoos, the local law officer ought to be told, the police ought to be warned. If it is known that someone is keeping unprecedented numbers of birds in a suburb of a city, the authorities should be told. It is not happening. It is no wonder that thousands of Australian birds go overseas illegally year by year. It is no wonder that the trafficking continues. If the points raised by the honourable member for Petrie would work, I would join him in saying: `Let us do something about it. Let us look at the idea of the export of certain species'. But I do not think it will work. I think we have to get tougher, and we need to call on the community generally and say: `This is your responsibility'. It is not just the responsibility of the politician, the legislator, the police officer or the bureaucrat; it is the responsibility of every person to ensure that we protect what we have. That only comes about by public awareness and I suppose that public awareness only comes through an ongoing education program starting with our young. I have noticed a greater interest amongst young Australians in protecting what belongs to Australia. I notice that this interest is growing. I congratulate State governments for the programs they are adopting in their schools, but we also need to aim our program and our awareness education at the total community. It is a complete community responsibility to protect our flora and fauna from exploitation. Whilst this law has to be commended and the amendments being brought forward by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) are welcomed, the laws and agreements, whilst necessary internationally and nationally, are simply not enough. The Government can achieve its objectives only if it has community support. I ask that those who consider this question reject the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Petrie. Instead, we should toughen up on what we can export. More importantly, we should increase our apprehension tactics and improve the risk of being caught. That is what it is all about. If that were to happen, truly we would make some major inroads against the criminals who are destroying and devastating Australia's natural resources. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.58) —I listened very intently to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who has just resumed his seat. He might be surprised to know that I find myself in quite a considerable amount of agreement with the sentiments he expressed. I also find myself in agreement, in part, with the views expressed by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). The legislation before the House is said by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his very comprehensive second reading speech, to provide amendments which he groups into four categories, namely: To make controls on export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade; to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have proved, in practice, to be unnecessarily complex; to clarify and tighten certain enforcement provisions; and to increase protection for those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. I will deal with them in reverse order. I hope that all who are concerned about the protection of Australian fauna would have no problem at all in supporting the proposition that we must increase protection to those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. I can think of no more vile, cruel and inhumane act than the smuggling out of Australia, in deplorable conditions, of our native fauna, many of which arrive dead at the eventual destination, having died the most unpleasant and horrible deaths. People who engage in this trade are criminals, and top level criminals at that. A criminal who attacks a human being knows that his opponent is capable of defending himself and that there is at least a chance that the thug will get something for his own corner from the victim whom he attacks. I believe that the criminal who, with subversive and highly skilled intent, captures and ensnares Australian fauna, especially birds, and then arranges for their transportation out of this country, evading the authorities whose duty it is to ensure the surveillance of our nation, and permits those birds, which are the natural product of Australia in the truest natural sense of those words, to be transported in deplorable conditions-and we read horrific reports of hundreds arriving dead-deserves no support and certainly no mercy from a community which is outraged. This is a multi-million dollar crime racket. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We are not talking about small beer or peanuts. As my colleague the honourable member for Petrie so effectively put to the House, this is one of the great national shames in Australia today. The honourable member for Capricornia made a point which I endorse. Is it not amazing how few people seem to know about this going on and how few are prepared to come forward to give the information which could lead to the apprehension and the conviction of these vile humans unfit to have the name Australians? Mr Slipper —Sub-humans. Mr HODGMAN —Sub-humans. They just appal me. I have very, very strong views; in fact, some would say my views are sometimes extreme, but I find it difficult to remain un- emotional when I am dealing with people who have been guilty of gross cruelty to animals and those who have been guilty of gross cruelty to small children. Psychiatrists come to the courts and explain the reason why cruelty to children occurs and we are told that baby bashing is something that will occur and will continue to occur. I do not accept that. I have to say quite bluntly that I am less than impressed by those who continually advance the argument that that is something we have to learn to live with. I cannot be part of that. Mr Barry Jones —But you have to ask why. You have to look for reasons. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is quite correct. We are duty bound to ask why; but, in my view, the reason given in many cases does not expiate the crime. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and I have discussed the law at length over many years. It will surprise him to be reminded that we have known each other for very close to 30 years. The reasons given for committing a crime can never expiate it. Were that to be so, anyone who has a good reason for breaking the law can say that he subjectively assessed his reasons. What do we do with people who take out natural fauna in these circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am proud that you are in the chair because this is an area of community interest in which you have been personally involved for many years. There is no problem in relation to the fourth category or in relation to the third criterion namely, the clarification and tightening of certain enforcement provisions. I now come to the second category which proposes: . . . to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have proved, in practice, to be unnecessarily complex. Let me tell the House a true story, to which I have referred in another place as the case of the galloping budgerigar. This case involved a family in Australia. The father was transferred to New Zealand. He was not transferred in a private capacity; he was attached to the Department of Trade of the Commonwealth of Australia and he was to go to New Zealand in pursuance of his duties. I was the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time. It was a sad time because it was about the time that Sir Phillip Lynch became sick and eventually had to resign. As we all know, he died tragically two years thereafter. The present shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), was the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time. The case of a little boy in Sydney came across my desk. He was confronted with a situation that his family had to move to New Zealand, which is not really far away. The Minister at the table knows how proud we all are of the links between Hobart and Christchurch and between Hobart and Auckland. Flying to those places is almost like taking an interstate trip. Mr Slipper —Tell us about comrade Lange. Mr HODGMAN —That is another story. But those trips are shorter than going to Western Australia. The authorities of the Commonwealth, with the best will in the world, said that the family could go to New Zealand but the budgie could not. The little boy faced the traumatic situation of having to leave behind this pet to which he was very deeply attached. Fortunately, in those days of enlightened government, we had a thing called ministerial discretion, something which disappeared under the totalitarian authoritarianism of the socialist Government which currently occupies the Treasury benches. After accumulating something like 30 pages of submissions, letters and representations, the honourable member for Kooyong, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, was prepared to approve the flight of the budgie. It went with the rest of the family to New Zealand. This is not just a funny little story. Let me tell the House why it was so critical that a discretion be exercised in this case. The little boy was so distressed about losing his pet, which would have to have been put down by a veterinary surgeon, that he attempted suicide. I give this example not to denigrate the officials of the time who were simply doing their duty but to make a point that when we talk about improving administrative procedures we ought to recognise that in some cases following them can work an injustice. I note that presently if one wants to take a pet outside Australia one has to have been resident in Australia for four years and the period of ownership of the pet now has to be three years. If my memory is correct it previously used to be at least two years. What does one do with a budgerigar in the situation that I mentioned which has been owned for two years and nine months? What discretion does the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act give to a Minister? Will a family have to be deprived of a pet because of the accident of a few weeks difference in the date of its birth? The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is in charge of this Bill, is a very humane person. He is one of the most likable Ministers in the Hawke socialist Government. I am always reluctant to praise publicly any member of the Hawke socialist Government because members tell me it does them no good in the Caucus, but that is another matter. I hope that this is one aspect which can be looked at. Whilst it has often been said that hard laws make bad cases, I think governments and Ministers are there sometimes to handle 5 per cent of the cases. If they were dealt with strictly according to the administrative procedures, an injustice would occur. Governments and Ministers are there to exercise a proper discretion and, indeed, a touch of humanity. Mr Tuckey —We are the insulation between the people and the bureaucracy. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for O'Connor once again trumps my humble words, because he has just put the issue in a nutshell. The Parliament is indeed the insulation between the people and the bureaucracy. I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in most ministerial offices 95 per cent of the decisions made are not difficult; they can be made straight down the line. A Minister can say: `There is the Government policy; there is the legislation; there is the decision'. In the 5 per cent of cases I mentioned ministerial discretion needs to be exercised. Mr Hodges —You need compassion. Mr HODGMAN —We need compassion. I come to the crux of the Bill, which is the first category. The Bill proposes: . . . to make controls on export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade. It will not take me very long to say that as an Australian proud of my nationality, proud of Australia and proud of its fauna and flora, I do not believe that it would be the end of the world if some of our fauna which is in abundance were to be made available in proper circumstances and under proper conditions to other countries. I have seen with my own eyes the joy and excitement in the United States brought about by the arrival of the koalas. Those animals are an enormous attraction. I know that there have been problems with koalas going to Japan and these are matters which must be attended to. However, can anybody really strongly argue that it is the end of the world if, under appropriate circumstances, Australian koalas, which are in abundance, or Australian kangaroos, which are in even more abundance, should be allowed to leave this country? The sulphur crested cockatoo and the galah are also examples. One could hardly say there was a national shortage of those birds and one would be hard pressed to argue that it was the end of the world if a few of them were permitted to display their beauty and charm in places outside Australia. I would like to propose that, in appropriate circumstances, the animals of Australia would be much better diplomats for this country than some of the humans who currently represent us. We have a tremendously abundant natural wealth which we should share with the rest of the world. As my final point, I take the thoughts of the honourable member for Petrie because he is a very thoughtful, sincere and humane member of of this Parliament. He is also a hard worker and, therefore, is in fact a first rate member of Parliament. What is so wrong with the Government applying its mind and exercising some of the energies which we are told abound in the greatest Ministry since World War II, in coming up with a plan whereby, for example, the export of Australian fauna could be handled through the zoos and universities of this country, particularly the zoos? The cost of running zoos is an ever-increasing burden. Zoos must be run properly or I would rather not have them at all. Why could not someone have the wit to come up with the proposal that this whole matter is handled through non-profit organisations, such as the zoos of Australia, and that the matter is placed in their hands and no others. I do not like the feeling of trade in Australian fauna. It rubs me the wrong way. The honourable member for Petrie and I are ad idem on that. The idea of pieces of silver for Australian fauna is just not my cup of tea. What about the proposition that the zoos of Australia be given exclusive rights to handle the export of Australian fauna under proper controls and conditions? I welcome back the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I will probably shock him by telling him that in his absence I complimented him. I hope that that does him no harm in Caucus. Mr Cohen —I had better check up. If you are saying nice things about me, I am in trouble. Mr HODGMAN —I was about to say `in a spirit of Christian charity'-I think that I had better rephrase that too. My compliments were given across the chamber on a bipartisan basis. However, the Minister is now back. I know that he has been detained by the Government, wracked as it is with problems which have had the Minister in the Cabinet room trying to sort out the economy of Australia and how to prevent this nation from going bankrupt under the policies of the Hawke socialist Government. Could I ask the Minister to look at my proposal that this matter be put into the hands of reputable, recognised non-profit public institutions? I have mentioned the zoos of Australia and I also mention, perhaps, the universities. I suggest that they be given a monopoly-and this suggestion comes from a Liberal-on the export of Australian fauna. I have said that I do not like the talk of Australian trade in fauna; I deplore the monsters-they are not even worthy to be called humans-who are engaged in this multi-million dollar racket whereby Australian birds are carted out of this country in deplorable conditions and die horrible deaths. I am completely with the Minister on that point and I have said that I support the strongest possible protection to those who provide information which will lead to the prosecution, conviction and punishment of these monsters and beasts. I further commended the Minister on the moves that he has made in relation to administrative procedures, but I have asked that he should still retain and exercise a ministerial discretion. My colleague and friend, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), will tell the Minister at some time of the case of the budgerigar which finally got to New Zealand because of a compassionate and kind Minister at that time, the honourable member for Kooyong. Across party lines, I say that the Bill is worthy of support. I commend the Minister for the way in which he has approached the performance of his ministerial duties. He has not been seduced, misled or conned by some of those who use the name of conservation for the purpose of pursuing political objectives which have nothing to do with conservation at all. I am proud that we have a Minister who is prepared to say when statements are made which are not true that they are not true. Other Ministers might think it easier to just go ahead quietly and ignore the radical conservationists who are prepared to twist the truth for political purposes. This Minister, to his great credit, has not done that and I hope that he never will. This Government, to its credit so far, has shown that it is not prepared to be the victim of what I would call bluntly intellectual blackmail of the lowest order. For those reasons, in supporting the Bill, I commend the Government to read the speech of the honourable member for Petrie, take note of its wisdom and act upon it at the earliest opportunity. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(12.16) —I spoke on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Bill when it came into the House in 1982. I expressed some reservations about it then. I support the amendments contained in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill because I think they are an improvement to the existing legislation. I am afraid that that is about the limit of my support. Faced with the bunkum and ill-informed emotionalism that I have heard in the House today-a discourse which held up a mirror to my own hypocrisy-I am afraid that I will not now deliver the 20 minutes of conventional wisdom which I had compiled. Unlike most people in this House, I have had experience in this trade because I used to trap animals for export to zoos. It was an industry that flourished in South Australia in the 1950s and I might add that in the last year that kangaroos were exported from this country alive-in 1958-59-the company I worked for shipped out something more than 7,000 kangaroos. Those animals were shipped without insurance and were delivered in New York with a very high survival rate. We consistently expected better than 99 per cent live deliveries, a figure which was achieved. Those animals fetched #125 each in New York, and those who remember pounds, shillings and pence will know that in those days one could do a lot with ten bob. Within 18 months of that industry being stopped, we were right in the middle of the export of kangaroo meat, which was sent to West Germany as a replacement for venison. That was a very lucrative market and one which I am ashamed to say was outrageously abused by this country. I have never ever been able to work out why it was so depleting of the fauna of this country to sell animals which were alive, but apparently it was quite okay to sell them as meat. That situation is a monument to the hypocrisy and stupidity of the various conservation groups that abounded in Sydney and Melbourne in those days. Today I am afraid they are all over the country. The only thing that must be considered when one looks at this legislation is its impact on Third World countries. There is no doubt that this Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species legislation throughout the world is the forum of the developed, affluent nations. One of the unfortunate things about rare animals is that they mostly choose to live in poor countries. There are conservationists in other parts of the world who take a more realistic view. Today they are looking at the economic rather than the moral imperatives. Last year Zimbabwe earned $US6.5m from hunting rights that were extended to tourists in that country. If the tourists paid about $US500 a day they were allowed to go out and hunt. For every animal they shot they paid a premium-something like $3,000 for an elephant and $780 for a buffalo. There was a bag limit and this provided very valuable assistance to a country that was looking for foreign exchange. I might also add that, while the purists may hate it, a scheme like this is an awfully big incentive to preserve a country's fauna, especially if a government can get that sort of deal for it. Mr Cohen —How does that conserve them? Mr CAMPBELL —As a matter of fact, Zimbabwe's record of conservation has improved dramatically in recent times. Let us look at the swallowtail butterfly. There is a $100m trade annually in Australian swallowtail butterflies. Good specimens fetch up to $2,000 each. There has been massive exploitation of the rarer species, such as the Queen Alexandra bird tail butterfly which comes from Papua New Guinea. This exploitation is being supported by unscrupulous dealers. The Papua New Guinea answer to this is to go into butterfly ranching. The people there simply fence off a piece of jungle to keep the goats out, tend flowers that the butterflies like, collect the chrysalides and hatch the pristine butterfly, which fetches the biggest price. Papua New Guinea is falling down here because the European Community, which is the biggest market, has put a ban on the importation of this butterfly because it says that it is endangered. This ban is endangering the industry in Papua New Guinea. If the industry dies it will once more go back into the hands of unscrupulous dealers. The business in Papua New Guinea, supported by the Government there, undoubtedly will ensure the survival of that species. I accept that there are rare species which are under threat. The crocodile is certainly under threat. Caymans generally are under threat. The rhee bird in South America is under threat-it may even be too late for that bird. There is no doubt that husbanding these animals is a solution there. If we were to look at farming these species we could preserve them. It is something we have to look at. Last year, Japan imported in round figures $US4.5m worth of musk which came from the glands of 11,000 musk deer slaughtered mainly in the Himalayas and China. I do not believe the musk deer can stand that sort of attention. It certainly would be in the musk deer's interests if China took to farming these animals to supply the wants and needs of the Japanese. Australia is one of the few countries in the world which are not poor and which have some rare and interesting animals. I can tell honourable members that it is not hunting or harvesting that depletes fauna; it is habitat. Destroy the habitat and one destroys the fauna. Let us look at the situation in Australia with the kangaroo. In recent times we have enhanced its habitat. We have put water into areas where kangaroos could not live before because there was no water, just as there are no sacred site claims for Aborigines on the Nullarbor because there was no water and therefore there were no Aborigines there. When I and a few other people pioneered the development on the Nullarbor in 1960 there were no kangaroos there except in exceptionally good seasons when there were a few reds there-a few meglia rufa. Today, kangaroos of all the major species abound on the Nullarbor simply because man has provided a habitat in which they can live. That has happened not just in that area but throughout many vast areas of Australia. It is a nonsense to say that the kangaroo is under threat. I commend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) for the excellent work that he has done in this regard. I think the publication that he has just commissioned should be distributed widely throughout the world. I would certainly like to help with that distribution. I would also like to look at a couple of other aspects. I support emu farming in Australia because I believe it is the only project which has economic viability for Aboriginals in remote areas. It has a product of sufficiently high value to counter the distances involved. It needs relatively little capital to get started and it would be supplying a market which is enormous. When I did some promotion of this in Wiluna, Western Australia, I immediately got some very hostile letters, including one from a school teacher in Victoria who is the president of some conservation foundation. I ignored his letter, so he followed it up with a phone call. His observation to me was: `How dare you commercialise half Australia's coat of arms'. The truth is, of course, that we have been feeding the other half to dogs for centuries. That is the city perspective, the ill-informed emotionalism which I find so depressing in this country today. What we need to do, if we really care, to make Aboriginals self-sufficient in remote areas is to provide and develop industries that will give them the economic clout to be proud and independent. Emu farming is one of those industries. It is one that we should be encouraging in Australia. The emu's hide happens to make the finest book binding leather in the world and there is virtually an open-ended market for it. The same can certainly be said of crocodile farming. Honourable members may recall the headline in the papers in November 1985 that 200,000 budgerigars had perished at Laverton. They drank cyanide water from one of the tailing dams. There was a lot of alarm about this, and it was certainly sad. The truth is that those budgerigars were looking for water in a remote and inhospitable area and if they had not found the cyanide water they would probably have died of thirst anyway. On the Nullarbor in 1982 I saw 20,000 gallon tanks full to the brim with drowned budgerigars-yet the budgerigar abounds. We have listened to the emotional plight of the little boy with his budgerigar. I believe that if that budgerigar was any colour but green the Commonwealth had no right to ban its export because only green budgerigars are found in the wild in Australia; in fact, in the world because Australia is the only country that has budgerigars. We have heard a lot of talk about organised crime. I can tell honourable members this: If we want to enhance or encourage organised crime we should make products hard to get. If we really wanted to combat organised crime we would license dealers and people to catch these birds. If we had licensed dealers in the field they would be the first people to tell when illegal operations were taking place because it is their industry and their livelihood that is at threat, and if we are serious about it we must consider that. It worked well in Australia during the 1950s. From my experience there was no attempt to sell the rare species that were protected then, such as Naretha parrots and the Princess parrot, polytelis alexandrae. The trade was not in those birds; it was in the basic ones that abounded. I mentioned habitat a little while ago but let us consider what has happened in Australia. We have destroyed the habitat of the cockatoo but increased its source of food. We have planted millions of acres of wheat and other grains which feed the cockatoos, but we have chopped down the trees in which it used to nest. One of the strategies of the cockatoo when it nests is to find a hole in a tree and use its beak to cut the bark from around that hole and leave it hard and shiny. The reason for this is quite simple; it is to deter goannas, the only predator that that bird faced until we introduced the cat. That was all very well in the days when we had plenty of trees, but now those trees are under pressure because so much bark has come off them. In some areas in which we have the joint problem of rising ground water and the over-population of cockatoos; we are putting enormous stress on the trees. It is quite legal to go out and shoot the cockatoos, but it is illegal to export them. I believe that the Government should consider the organised exploitation of these birds and the taxing of profits at a suitable rate. A 50 per cent tax would be quite equitable. If 50,000 birds were exported from Australia at $1,000 apiece-and I suspect that 50,000 cockatoos is a sustainable figure in world terms-that would bring to Australia a return of something like $50m. Honourable members might just ponder that: If $50m were applied to a 60 per cent interest subsidy it would service a loan of $833m. These are the sorts of things we have to look at. This country abounds with national parks which are national parks in name only. They are not managed and there is no attempt made by State governments to put in any facilities. What happens is that fauna leave these national parks and tend to cause problems in the surrounding properties. If we were to have an industry which was sustainable and giving returns, we could perhaps afford to invest in our national parks and make our national parks more than mere lines on a map. It is something which Australia, if we are truly proud of this country, should be considering. I would like to pay tribute to the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). I sat in this House and listened to the debate and I was impressed by his contribution. It was considered and informed. I just want to place on the record the fact that I appreciated what he had to say. Mr McGauran —Keith Wright didn't. Mr CAMPBELL —I can speak only for my faction. We must look at the real problems of conservation and not let ourselves be blinded by what I call an affluent urban perspective, because the real world is often not as it seems. The danger here is if one goes out and attacks the world as it seems that one often does the very thing one does not want to do. I do not believe that any of these environmentalists or conservationist groups set out to destroy the fauna. But that will be the result of what they do. In the pastoral industry, if there is no culling of the kangaroo, there will be wholesale slaughter. I am reminded of a time when I was catching kangaroos for urgent shipment at a place called Boorungie station which is not far from Broken Hill. All night long the locals were out shooting with .303s. It is rather disconcerting to try to catch live kangaroos when spent .303 shells are whistling around one's head. At the end of the night we caught our usual tally of 20 live kangaroos. The locals said: `How did you go?' We said: `We got 20, which is pretty good'. They said: `We shot 800'. That was the sort of situation that was occurring. There was no doubt that the country literally stank because of the dead kangaroo carcases, and foxes abounded. I have always made a habit of shooting foxes because I see them as anathema to the Australian environment. The locals asked me not to shoot the foxes because they helped to eat the carrion. Of course, they would eventually help to eat their lambs at a later date and they would certainly play havoc with a lot of Australian fauna. With regard to the turtle, there is a total ban on the export of all Australian turtles. There is no doubt that at one time the industry flourished and there was absolutely no management at all. I am prepared to admit that it was a deplorable situation. But there is no real shortage of turtles. They are products which fetch a premium price and the harvesting of them would be well within the bounds of a policy of conservation. The real threat to the turtle is probably when it is nesting and is most vulnerable. On the north-west coast of Australia I have seen foxes waiting on the beaches for the turtles to lay their eggs so that they can dig them up and eat them. Efforts to control foxes in that area would do far more to preserve the turtle than the bans which we impose on their export, piously thinking that we have done our bit. This story, sadly for Australia, is repeated over and again. In Wyndham-a town in the north-west extremity of this great country, a town facing enormous economic problems, a town in which the abattoirs have closed and there is really no other industry-bird catching was, in my opinion, an honourable profession. It was carried out by people for whom I have the highest regard, many of whom were of Aboriginal descent, who knew and understood the environment and were very careful with the birds that they collected. We have put enormous restraints on that trade. One of life's little ironies that I discovered there was that, while we were banning the catching of a certain species, we were murdering them in great numbers by putting poisoned grain around the Ord irrigation projects to deter invasions of rats. I often think we could have done more to preserve that species had it been living and thriving in zoos throughout the United States and Europe. We really must consider our priorities in this matter. I think there is room in Australia for a rational program of management. I think that this is the real way in which to combat crime in Australia. I believe that the preservation of species and enhancement of the environment will fit much better in the scenario I have outlined than some of the proposals I have heard in this House today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(12.34) —I thank my colleagues for their support. I am very pleased to address the House on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill before the House today. I am particularly pleased to follow that breath of fresh air in this chamber, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). It was interesting that he mentioned that he could speak only for his faction. I recall that recently he mentioned that faction power plays a tremendous role in the Australian Labor Party. I did not agree with everything that the honourable member said in his speech, but at one stage I expected him to declare an open season on the greatest pest confronting Australia today, the Hawke who resides in the Lodge. But I notice that he did not do that. The Bill before the House today amends the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, legislation introduced with the support of all parties. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has stated that it addresses certain legal and administrative constraints which have become apparent. The Bill tries to address matters in four categories. It seeks to make controls on the export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade. It seeks to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have proved in practice to be unnecessarily complex. It seeks to clarify and tighten certain enforcement provisions, and it seeks to increase protection for those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. As members on both sides of the House would be aware, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I was pleased to see in the Minister's explanatory memorandum that there are no financial implications emanating from this legislation. No extra costs will be placed on the already heavily overburdened shoulders of the Australian taxpayer. I was pleased to see that the Opposition has set up its Waste Watch Committee which will seek out areas of government mismanagement and areas of government waste. It was interesting to note in its first report that quite a few of those areas have already been identified. The original Act, which came into effect in 1984, brought together various pieces of legislation which provided conservation controls on the import and export of Australian plants and animals. The Minister claimed that the principal Act enables Australia to meet international obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES. It also controls the export of native Australian plants and animals and their products and the import of live animals, other than some aquarium fish and domestic stock. I wish to concentrate, as did some other members on this side of the House, on the question of the export of non-endangered native birds. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) raised the question of the approach of the shadow Minister for Trade, that excellent member, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is now at the table. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —It is interesting to see that the shadow Minister agrees with my description of him. I have had the benefit of looking at a Press release issued by the honourable member for Dawson and I think that the House is entitled to know exactly what that very effective honourable member said. He issued the Press release on 2 March 1986 at Toowoomba in the great State of Queensland. It is entitled `Bird export ban should be lifted'. It states: Shadow Trade Minister, Ray Braithwaite, said today the ban on commercial export of non-endangered native birds should be lifted in favour of carefully regulated and humane export. ``Recently, a Government sponsored study found that such a move would result in the development of a potentially substantial and economically important export industry,'' Mr Braithwaite said. ``Properly regulated exports would avoid cruel trapping and shipping practices which occur when birds are smuggled, and help eliminate smuggling.'' ``Moreover the controlled export of species, which are in plague proportions, would reduce crop damage and so aid another export industry.'' Mr Braithwaite said it was unfortunate the Government remained firmly committed to a policy of almost total prohibition of native bird exports, despite the completion of a study calling for restrictions to be lifted. ``This dogmatic and blinkered ideological persistence with a non-export policy is only resulting in the capture and wanton killing of species which are agricultural pests.'' ``With our trade position the way it is, we can't afford to overlook a rural export for which there is world demand and domestic oversupply,'' Mr Braithwaite said. That is the effect and the wording of the Press release of the honourable member for Dawson. The Minister in his response epitomised the Government's dogmatic and blinkered persistence with its attitude. The Minister denied the claims of the honourable member for Dawson that a Government sponsored report had recommended the lifting of the prohibition to allow export of non-endangered birds. I stress those words `non-endangered birds'. I refer to an article in the Australian of 10 January 1986 under a headline `Government urged to lift export bans on merinos, birds'. I will concentrate only on those aspects of the report which relate to birds; I will leave the discussion on merino sheep for another occasion. The first sentence of the article states: A report commissioned by the Federal Government has recommended that export restrictions on merino sheep and native birds be lifted. The article continues: The report, Import Export Programs for Animals and Animal Products in Australia, was written by W. S. Bulmer, of the Canadian Agriculture Department, and commissioned by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. . . . . Dr Bulmer found that `the ban on commercial export of non-endangered species-- those words again- of Australian birds should be lifted in favour of carefully regulated humane export'. He said strong arguments had been put to support a change of policy. These included: THERE was a potentially substantial and economically important export industry, given Australia's abundance of birds. PROPERLY regulated export would avoid cruel trapping and shipping practices which occurred when birds were smuggled. CONTROLLED reduction of certain species, considered pests in Australia, would reduce crop damage. BECAUSE of the excellent health of Australian birds, health test requirements would not be restrictive. Dr Bulmer concluded `the prohibition on the export of native birds is a restrictive policy which favours the capture and killing of the species which are agricultural pests'. The report completely verifies and supports the attitude of the honourable member for Dawson. His attitude is fully in line with that report, and it is interesting to note that the shadow Minister, who will soon be the Minister, has made a statement which is in line with the report commissioned by the Federal Government. The Minister claimed in his Press release that the report had been prepared by an officer of Agriculture Canada who had been in Australia as part of an exchange of officers earlier this year. I reiterate the words contained in the Australian; `a report commissioned by the Federal Government'. The article goes on to state: The report, Import Export Programs for Animals and Animal Products in Australia, was written by Dr W. S. Bulmer, of the Canadian Agriculture Department, and commissioned by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. I believe that the Minister should explain the discrepancy between the report in the Australian and the report in his Press release. I think that this matter should be looked at. The Minister went on in his Press release to state: . . . allowing export of the birds would be extremely costly to administer. The Government would have to train staff so that it could station bird-identification experts at international airports to prevent rare and endangered species, which may be difficult to tell apart from common species, from being taken out under cover. Surely we already should have at airports people who are able to stop the export of those birds. How much would it cost to educate someone to tell the difference between a cockatoo and a galah, or some of the more exotic species of birds mentioned by honourable members opposite? What about the farmers and rural producers of Australia, who already have high export charges imposed upon them? The Minister has claimed that the Government will have to charge a high fee per bird to offset those costs. I believe that when our Waste Watch Committee is finished with the Minister's Department, we would eliminate a lot of wasteful expenditure and the high fee per bird would not be too bad after all. What is wrong with a person who wants to export-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to his unequivocal assurance of as recently as a week ago, and repeated yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald, that there was no possibility of the Government removing or lifting the ceiling on home loan interest rates. Does the Minister still stand by this promise? Mr WEST —The whole question of the housing industry will be considered by Cabinet next week. I conclude my answer by saying that the Government remains committed to the retention of the ceiling on housing interest rates. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. In view of some reports that have appeared in newspapers this week concerning possible decisions or announcements by the Northern Territory Government in connection with the Chamberlain case, has the Attorney been advised or received any information at all concerning any decision that may have been made about the appointment of any type of commission and the terms of reference with which that commission would be charged? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This morning I received advice from the Attorney-General in the Northern Territory that he had introduced a Bill this morning to establish a royal commission, or a commission of inquiry, into the Chamberlain case. The Attorney-General did have discussions with me last week, and in turn had discussions with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, as to whether a Federal Court judge could be made available to conduct the inquiry. The Commonwealth has all the time been pleased to co-operate, and Mr Justice Morling of the Federal Court will be available for that commission. In the course of today's statement in the Northern Territory House of Assembly the Attorney-General was able to inform the Assembly that Mr Justice Morling would be requested to take up that commission as and when the legislation was passed. The legislation was only introduced into the Northern Territory this day and I understand it will take approximately one week before it is likely to be passed. It is certainly not opposed in the Northern Territory. The commission will then take effect in the Northern Territory. It is important, because evidence obviously will be taken from outside the Northern Territory, that there also be a Commonwealth commission. Cabinet has agreed that, following the appointment of the Northern Territory commission, the Commonwealth will make representations to His Excellency the Governor-General requesting that a similar commission be appointed in the Commonwealth of Australia's province. That means that Mr Justice Morling will have two commissions-a commission from the Northern Territory and one from the Commonwealth of Australia. The terms of reference are wide-ranging. They virtually encompass the provisions of section 475 of the New South Wales Crimes Act, which provides that any doubt or question whatsoever relating to the guilt of a person can be the subject of an inquiry. The Attorney-General in the Northern Territory has made it very clear that it would relate not only to matters subsequent to the trial but also to matters that might well have taken place before the trial. In other words, it will be a very wide-ranging inquiry. I also understand from the Attorney-General in the Northern Territory, so as to clearly indicate the impartial aspect of this inquiry, that solicitors in Sydney, Dawson Waldron, have been instructed to engage counsel to assist the commissioner. I understand Mr Chester Porter, Queen's Counsel of the Sydney Bar, has accepted those instructions and that appointment. I am sure that everybody will be satisfied that this commission will be as impartial and wide-ranging as can be envisaged. The evidence will be of a substantial nature and, accordingly, it might take some time before the commissioner is able to bring in a finding. I would not want to foreshadow when that could be but it will be as early as possible within the limitations of having perhaps to bring evidence from overseas. The terms of reference provide that on the completion of the inquiry and the taking of evidence the commissioner will be able to report on his conclusions. That is the relevant point. On that basis we will be able to advise the Parliament further on the report. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the frequent assurances given by him and the Treasurer that the Government would not remove or increase the present 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates. Will the Prime Minister tell the House today that he still stands by the precise terms of that promise? Mr HAWKE —As is so often the case, the admirable Minister for Housing and Construction has given a succinct answer to this question. I can do no better than call upon the words he used, so I do. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government will be considering the whole question of the housing industry in Cabinet next week and say to him, as the Minister for Housing and Construction did, that the Government remains committed to the retention of the ceiling on housing interest rates. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the claims made by the Opposition spokesmen, notably Senator Chaney and Senator Peter Baume, that the Government has generated racial tension within the community by pursuing a policy designed to meet the land needs of Aboriginal Australians? Is there any substance to these claims? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Yes, I am aware of the criticisms made on a variety of occasions, mainly by Senator Chaney, in which it has been alleged that during the period of the Fraser Government there was a broad consensus between the major political parties on the question of Aboriginal aspirations in respect of land rights. The suggestion is that with the election of the Hawke Government all changed. Of course, the political record shows that it really takes two parties to produce any level of consensus. During the period of the Fraser Government, Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs were in the position whereby members of the Opposition broadly supported the whole thrust of the Woodward recommendations and the criticism of the government of the day was that it was not doing enough, that it was not proceeding quickly enough, but basically there was an approach of general support. When the Hawke Government came to office, while we were still in a process of consultation, still endeavouring to formulate the details of land rights legislation, Senator Chaney and Mr Viner, both former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, found that their own Liberal Party State Conference overwhelmingly rejected their pleas for support for the maintenance of a policy of land rights. There is no way that it could be said that I, or any member on this side of the House, could possibly have had any influence in the decisions then being made by that Liberal Party State Conference. Following the rejection of the views of two former Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, Mr Hassell, embarked upon a nationwide visit to his colleagues in each State. Having visited Sydney, he participated in a television program with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Greiner, on 10 July 1984. What was their position? Let me quote Mr Greiner: We do not believe in New South Wales that there is a legitimate case for Aboriginal land rights. Mr Hassell, on the same program, said: Land rights is a racist policy and a serious threat to the security and future welfare of Australia. He visited Melbourne where he was again supported by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Honourable members opposite do not like the political record; that is their problem. This is what he had to say in Melbourne: People in the suburbs of Melbourne have got to understand that it is their backyards which could be affected as much as anyone in Western Australia. He said `their backyards'. Mr Connolly —You are a humbug and a hypocrite. Mr HOLDING —I ask for that to be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Connolly —If the Minister finds that- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Connolly —If the Minister finds that unpalatable, I will withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HOLDING —It is interesting to see that, when confronted with their own political record, the unctuous hypocrisy of Senator Chaney is self-evident. I would simply conclude by saying this: On the issue- Mr Connolly —On a point of order, I ask that the Minister withdraw the suggestion that Senator Chaney was a hypocrite. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr HOLDING —I am happy to withdraw that. I am happy to let Senator Chaney be judged by the political record, and that is essentially what honourable members are complaining about. This House will recall- Mr Connolly —I take a point of order. Madam Speaker, I ask that the remarks about Senator Chaney be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is nothing unparliamentary about the remarks. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —I ask honourable members to recall that when the question of immigration was being debated in this House the gentlemen opposite, just as they were prepared on the issue of Aboriginal land rights, were perfectly happy on the question of racial tensions in the community to act as kinds of political scavengers, up to their armpits in the political dunghill of racial tensions, in order to secure any level of political support for an ailing and failing leadership. When the record is examined, there ought to be a profound sense of shame on the other side of the House for their destruction of consensus, in the area of immigration and certainly in the area of Aboriginal hopes and aspirations. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister no doubt recalls coming to my electorate during the last election campaign and at Armidale on 18 November 1984 making the following comment in the course of his rural policy speech: No sector stands to gain more from the reduction in interest rates we have achieved. Every one percentage point drop in interest rates means a cut of $35m in farmers' interest bills. In the light of the seven percentage points increase in interest rates since then and the demonstrable additional costs of $245m to farmers as a result of this Government's high interest rate policy, what advice will he today give farmers, small businessmen and home owners plagued by his Government's continuing high interest rate policy? Mr HAWKE —I think anyone who understands the issues of macroeconomic policy will see that monetary policy is an indispensable part of our overall economic policy which has been successful in securing sustained economic growth in output and in employment and without debilitating inflation. It is also necessary to pursue a monetary policy in terms of protecting our balance of payments situation. It is so obvious that it is hardly necessary to say it, but everyone in this country would like to see lower interest rates. Of course, what we are about is to secure a situation in which we will be able to enjoy permanently lower interest rates. The macro- economic policy of this Government is set to achieve that position. I will continue through the mindless cacophony opposite to point out that, if we want to look at the record of costs as far as the rural sector is concerned, this Government is more than happy to compare its record of achievement against that of our predecessor. In fact, under the previous Government costs to farmers increased on average by over 12 per cent per annum-as I recall, by 12.2 per cent per annum. That was a record of cost increases inflicted upon the rural community by the Government of honourable members opposite-an increase of over 12 per cent per annum, namely, 12.2 per cent per annum. When this Government came in and we got responsible economic management we had a dramatic reduction in the rate of cost increases faced by farmers in this country. Instead of 12.2 per cent per annum which honourable members opposite inflicted upon them, we brought it down to less than 8 per cent. It is because we have been so singularly more successful than honourable members opposite were in government that we will continue to receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the Australian community on this issue. As well as what we have been able to do in reducing the overall level of cost increase which the mob opposite inflicted upon farmers during their tenure of office-of course in this period it is true that the rural sector as well as the rest of the Australian community has been suffering from high interest rates which have been the unfortunate but necessary concomitant of a tight monetary policy to protect our external situation-it is as well to notice what the benefit of the movement in the external situation has been for the rural sector. The depreciation has been of very considerable significance to the rural sector. Of course, in the period honourable members opposite were in office the rural sector suffered very significantly from the artificially high level of the exchange rate which the mob opposite foisted upon it because they had neither the wit nor the understanding to follow a comprehensive macroeconomic policy which would address the interests of the rural sector as well as the rest of Australia. We have brought about a situation where, in a comprehensive and intelligent macroeconomic policy, the rural sector, about which those opposite bleat so much but did so damn little to help, has been very significantly advantaged by the bringing down of the exchange rate from the artificially high level at which their incompetent economic policies maintained it. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Has the Minister noted that the self-styled Wilderness Society has signed a three-year lease for a complete floor in the plush new 22-storey Waldorf Hotel in Sydney at well over $1,000 a week? Can he assure the House that there is no direct Commonwealth grant being used for this? Will he have discussions with the Treasurer to prevent this organisation taking advantage of the taxation rip-off by individuals and corporations in giving normally non-tax deductible donations via the tax exempt Australian Conservation Foundation? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Prospect for the question without notice. First of all, I am not quite sure what the honourable member means when he says it is a `self-styled Wilderness Society'. I thought it was the Wilderness Society, self-styled or otherwise. I thought the honourable member for Prospect was a bit more numerate than that because it is under $1,000 a week, not over $1,000 a week. Dr Klugman —It is $55,000 a year. Mr COHEN —No. It is a three-year period, as I understand it. Any decisions about the office space accommodation are the Wilderness Society's decisions alone. We provide grants of about $1m per year to conservation bodies in Australia. This year the Wilderness Society received a grant of $40,000. It was a considerable increase on its previous grants because there has been change over the years in the work that is done by different groups. The Wilderness Society has increasingly taken a higher profile and the amount of money does vary from time to time. However, I understand the Society is establishing a retail shop in the city. I am sure that the honourable member, who is a regular visitor to conservation group offices, would be aware that most of these bodies have their offices in grotty little back rooms in back alleys in Sydney and cannot afford prominent space to compete with some of the people in the publicity stakes on a lot of these conservation issues. I think it is good that a conservation group has a prominent site where it can operate a retail shop, sell its wares and distribute information regarding the issues of the day in conservation. I commend it for its initiative. Dr WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister stated last week that Australia is part of the fastest growing region in the world. It should also be noted that Australia has the lowest growth rate in that area. Given the above, is it true that retailers in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore are leading a boycott of Australian goods? Is this boycott related to adverse publicity Australia has received in these countries emanating from the Government's implicit support for communist Vietnam? Does the Minister believe it is beneficial for Australia's trading position and for the future of the nation for the Labor socialist Government to continue to pursue a policy towards communist Vietnam which is neither understood nor supported by the majority of Australians and which is implicitly or explicitly opposed by our South East Asian trading partners? Mr DAWKINS —I am not quite sure that I followed all the drift of the honourable member's question, but the burden of it seemed to be: Is it the case that some of our important trading partners in our region are taking retaliatory action against Australia in relation to some of our foreign affairs stances to countries in the region, particularly Vietnam? If that is the case, I am certainly not aware of it. At this stage-I am not sure whether they have arrived or whether they are about to arrive-a mission of sellers is coming from South Korea to talk to retailers for the purposes of expanding the range of opportunities for Korean products in this country. As the honourable member would be aware, there is a very heavy imbalance in Australia's favour and the Government has been taking some actions to try to ensure that our long term relationship with Korea, which is a very important one, is underpinned by the progressive development of a more balanced situation of trade between the two countries. Korea has very different political outlooks on a number of questions. It has certainly not tried to use those political differences to disadvantage us at all. I think we have been very successful in maintaining a very strong and important relationship with the countries of our region. Indeed, the initiative which the Prime Minister took a couple of years ago in establishing an ongoing dialogue with the Association of South East Asian Nations countries, plus Korea, Japan, New Zealand and so on, has been very important in strengthening trading and other economic relationships which exist between Australia and the other countries of the region-relationships which will be extraordinarily useful to us as we approach the new round of multilateral trade negotiations where we have been able to encourage a greater unanimity of view between Australia and the other countries of the region in relation to these important issues. Dr Watson —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. In my question, I specifically mentioned the countries of Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, not South Korea. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Communications inform the House of the latest developments in the Government's approach to regional broadcasting, both radio and television? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. In relation to regional tele- vision, as is known to the House, the desire of the Government is to bring, as quickly as possible, equalisation of television services to as much of Australia as possible within the shortest period. This is a complicated issue. One of the matters to which the Government had to give a lot of consideration was to balance the position of existing operators and, at the same time, to bring competition into areas where it was possible to do so. That matter was considered last year by the Government and it was considered necessary for more detailed consideration to be given to the proposals that I had put forward. One of the reasons for that was that one of our colleagues described my proposals in relation to competition as being Sunday Too Far Away. Mr Peter Fisher —Was that the Prime Minister? Mr DUFFY —No, it was not the Prime Minister. It was, in fact, Senator the Hon. J. N. Button. Mr Howard —He knows about the J-curve, too. Mr DUFFY —It is J. N. Button-J for John is this context, not J for the J-curve. Having regard to that concern, a very highly qualified committee of Cabinet was set up to examine the matter. The study of that committee is now well advanced. I hope that the proposals, on an agreed basis, will go back to Cabinet within the next month or thereabouts. Mr Ian Cameron —Who is on this committee? Mr DUFFY —The members of the committee are the most popular Prime Minister in the history of this country; the world's leading Treasurer; Senator Button; and one of the longest serving Ministers for Communications in this place. That is the highly qualified committee to which I have referred. In relation to radio, as the honourable member will be aware, the forward development unit within the Department of Communications was set up to conduct a study into the future directions of commercial radio. One of the issues raised during that study by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters was the availability of FM frequencies for new services. In my view, that matter had to be looked at in the context of the whole study of the future directions of commercial radio. Therefore, the FDU was requested to report on an interim basis on that matter by 31 March. The interim report should be available by about that date. While recognising the concerns of AM operators that they are locked out of the FM mode, I should reiterate that, where possible, an extra independent commercial service remains the first and preferred option of the Government in line with our desire to bring diversity of choice in radio. However, I recognise also that other sections of the broadcasting industry, such as existing FM operators, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and public broadcasters as well as independent applicants for FM licences, have an interest in this matter, and the FDU will take their interest into account in considering the matters put before it and before it reports to me. Finally, I just emphasise that that report will, of course, identify options and will not include recommendations to the Government. It will be along the lines of the report into television which will lay out all of the matters and, in fact, will suggest options for the Government and not recommendations. Mr NEHL —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. In view of the overwhelming and extraordinary growth of public interest in and opposition to the Bill of Rights legislative package and the Government's obvious reluctance to heed the National Party's call for it to withdraw the legislation, will the Attorney-General give the people of Australia the opportunity to express their opinion of this vital and dangerous legislation at a referendum? If not, why not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The only people who seem to be very concerned about the Bill of Rights are the members of the National Party. It is interesting that the National Party appears to have persuaded the Liberal Party that it should now oppose the Bill, because the Liberal Party, when in government of which the National Party was the rump at the time, agreed to set up the Human Rights Commission. That was done under the Fraser Government. I am astounded now to find that, despite the fact that the Commission has been in existence for some years, all of a sudden, because we are giving some teeth by way of legislation and looking at its being able to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this outburst has come from the honourable member. Let me make it very clear that if governments in Australia, both State and Federal, act in accordance with the International Covenant, they will have nothing at all to fear. I am amazed to think that so much anxiety has been caused by false propaganda. It is just incredible to think that the honourable member's Party so belittles the intelligence of the Australian people that it suggests to them that their property will be taken, that there will be some problems in their being able to conduct their businesses and that people will be affected by an International Covenant adopted by the world and adopted by us as defining human rights for the average Australian. Let me make it very clear: I think the only countries that would be worried about the problems mentioned by honourable members opposite would be those that have dictatorships. That is the real issue. The issue with human rights- Mr Blunt —You are putting yourself in the same category as Gareth Evans. Mr Connolly —Human rights are ignored. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Those interjections show that honourable members opposite do not want to hear any answer. The aim of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizen against the excesses of governments. That is the real issue. Honourable members opposite have nothing to be worried about. If they want fair electoral boundaries, for example, on the basis of equal adult suffrage why are they worried? If honourable members opposite are interested in preventing discrimination whether it be on the grounds of sex, race or equal opportunity of employment, they will find that not one Australian worthy of that name would in any way decry the principles set out in that Covenant. The Covenant provides for equality of opportunity. It recognises the dignity of the human being and the rights of a person as against those of the state and that there has to be a principle of justice to guarantee that those rights are adhered to. The only reason this Bill is being opposed is that honourable members opposite have a fear complex. Basically, that fear complex relates to the gerrymander in Queensland, where the Government of that State is afraid of allowing Queenslanders to exercise their vote on an equal adult suffrage basis because it might affect that Government's opportunity to remain in office. If that is the only criterion on which the honourable gentleman is prepared to support his argument, he should not be prepared to decry the fact that perhaps there ought to be a referendum in Queensland on whether the people agree with the gerrymander. I am very anxious to encourage my Party in Queensland, at a State level, to suggest that at the next State election there be a referendum among Queenslanders as to whether they think that some electorates should be weighted by a figure of four to one. How could any Australian worthy of the name hold his head up in that case and say that he was endorsing the human rights principle of universal suffrage? It is about time that the honourable gentleman woke up to the fact that he is in the National Parliament. Australia has national obligations. We have to set an example to those around us. That cannot be done if we follow what the honourable gentleman has suggested. Mr SCOTT —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce advise the House of government progress aimed at achieving increasing development of locally designed motor vehicles and automotive components for Australia's automotive industry? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for his question. His knowledge in this area and his concern for the future of the Australian motor industry is well known here. An advertisement for automotive industry grants was recently put in the papers by the Automotive Industry Authority, which was set up as a result of the Button car plan. Sixty-nine applications for grants have been received, covering a diversity of projects from passenger motor vehicles to component parts. A number of projects are being considered by the Authority since the issuing of ministerial directions on the operating of the motor vehicles and components development grants scheme in September last year. So far, the Authority has entered into contractual arrangements with three companies. The largest grant by far has been one of $26,460,000 awarded to the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd for the design and development of the Falcon replacement car. That is a car which it is hoped will have a significant export income, something that we have not experienced in the motor industry before. To put it in perspective that sum, which sounds an extraordinarily large sum, is in fact only 8 per cent of the overall investment in the development of the new Falcon of $333m by Ford Australia. Mr Bilney —Nearly as good as the Magna. Mr BARRY JONES —That car was also from South Australia. A grant of $671,000 was awarded to James N. Kirby Pty Ltd for the design and development of both manual and power variable ratio rack and pinion steering systems to be incorporated in future locally produced vehicles. The Authority is in the final stages of negotiations with five other companies for grant assistance totalling about $7m. Details are not yet available because the negotiations have not yet finished. The number of applications at such an early stage in the scheme's operation indicates that firms are taking advantage of government encouragement for Australian design of vehicles and components in the automotive industry. In the component parts sector applications reflect not only an increase in design input from that sector in response to requests from motor vehicle producers but also an increasing commitment to initiating design changes that develop products salable on both domestic and export markets. I can say that at this early stage the future looks very good indeed. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. In view of the fact that today's housing finance statistics reveal, first, that in January new loans made for the purchase of new houses were at the lowest level on record; and, secondly, that finance for housing in January fell by 14.3 per cent compared with December, which is a fall of 35.5 per cent in the last six months, will the Minister admit that the Government's high interest rate policy has created a crisis in the housing industry? If not, will he kindly tell us why this catastrophic fall has occurred? Mr WEST —The figures released today for the month of January for all significant lenders showed that a total of $784m was lent for housing. Savings banks loans for housing reached a figure of $411m. The main component of that was the Commonwealth Bank's lending figure of $135m and I understand that it will maintain that effort. The State Bank of Victoria is also doing very well. It lent $125m for the month. The fundamental point I wish to make is one which can be made by examining the figures for the December quarter of 1985-86 when all significant lenders reached a total of $2.9 billion for housing loans. That compares with a figure for the same quarter just three years ago of $1.6 billion. Honourable members can see to what extent housing lending has accelerated under this Government. Of course we are not happy with the present level of general interest rates and the Government is making every effort, by switching some emphasis from monetary policy to fiscal policy, to bring general interest rates down. As the Indicative Planning Council says, we believe that will happen during 1986. As to any extra measures that may be necessary, both I and the Prime Minister said at the outset of today's Question Time that we would be examining such measures next week. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Is it true that Australia Post's letter delivery rate in Sydney has been most satisfactory for some time? Will the Minister kindly confirm this high standard of service by this important government instrumentality? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question and for his long and continuing interest in Australia Post. It may have been preferable, so that I could give him the sort of detail that he may require in answer to the question, for him to have written one more of his numerous letters relating to this matter. However, as the honourable member for Lowe and other honourable members are aware, last year there was an industrial dispute in New South Wales which caused enormous difficulties to the systems. In fact, the information that the honourable member for Lowe has relayed to the House in his question is correct; there has been a considerable improvement in the performance of Australia Post in New South Wales. On the basis of that improvement, I can tell the honourable member for Lowe that I am confident that that very difficult period we went through last year with Australia Post in New South Wales is probably now over. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Is the non-departmental person who accompanied the Minister on a trip to Italy in October 1985, after which means were contrived to prematurely recall Thomas Walton, Australia's Senior Trade Commissioner and Consul-General in Milan, the same person who has been under final consideration for appointment to Mr Walton's position? If not, why did the Minister contrive to prematurely recall Mr Walton? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Walton's tenure of the position in Milan is being considered by the Australian Trade Commission; it is not something for me to determine. Mr N.A. Brown —Why did you sack him? Mr DAWKINS —I would be only too happy to go into the details of this case if honourable members would like me to do so. Mr N.A. Brown —Please proceed. Mr DAWKINS —The fact is that this matter has been the subject of some actions in the court and in fact the proceedings were not continued with because the powers under which I required Mr Walton's recall were transferred to the Australian Trade Commission early in January. The matter is before the Australian Trade Commission and indeed I am not sure about the decisions that the Board of the Commission has made in relation to this matter. It is something about which presumably the Board will report to me when it has made its decision. At the time when I made my decision, the matter was clearly one for ministerial determination. The time for which a person occupies a particular post is a matter for the Minister for Trade to determine under the old Trade Commissioners Act. I determined that the work of the person in question was such that his tenure of the position up to the time when his term would have expired would have left us in a difficult situation in an important year for our trade relations with Italy. Mr Howard —Because he disagreed with you. Mr N.A. Brown —He told the truth. That is his sin. Mr SPEAKER —Order! A question has been asked and an answer is being given. Honourable members will not interject. Mr DAWKINS —Of course there was no disagreement about the facts. Let me not go into the details except to say- Mr Howard —No, don't do that; it would reveal you. Mr DAWKINS —I am perfectly happy to provide a proper and full response to this question. Mr N.A. Brown —On oath? Mr DAWKINS —It is quite clear that the interjecting Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been grievously misinformed about this matter. If he would like to have a look at all the details, I would be perfectly happy to provide them. Mr N.A. Brown —All right. I accept that. Did all the honourable members hear that? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will heed the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —There is no mystery about this matter. As I said, I would be perfectly happy to provide all the information to the honourable member. As far as I am concerned, our relations with Italy at this time are extraordinarily important for two particular reasons. One is that we have just established a working group to expand trading opportunities between Australia and Italy and one of the emerging outcomes of that is that the Australian motor vehicle industry may indeed begin to provide components to the Italian motor industry which would be a demonstration of the very great success of our motor vehicle industry under this Government, as the Minister for Science revealed earlier today. The second reason is this: In the context of the America's Cup, with two Italian syndicates participating and with the enormous interest about Australia that exists in Italy, it was important that we maximise our opportunities to expand further commercial relations between Australia and Italy. As far as I was concerned, it was important in that context to ensure that our representation in Milan and Rome was of the highest possible standard. That is why I took the action I did. As far as the second part of the honourable member's question is concerned, any decision that is taken over the appointment of a successor to Mr Walton in Milan is entirely for the Board of the Australian Trade Commission. Mr COHEN —I wish to make a small correction to an answer I gave earlier. I said that the honourable member for Prospect was not numerate in his calculations on the rent. In fact, I was wrong. Confess all is my policy. It was a three-year lease but it was $55,000 a year. I apologise to the honourable member; he is not often right but this time he is very right. Madam SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 March 1986 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-March 1986, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sub-section 61 (6) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, I present the annual report of the National Crime Authority for 1984-85, together with the text of a statement by the Inter-Governmental Committee of the National Crime Authority. Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report of the National Pacific Co-operation Council on Australia and Pacific economic co-operation. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board for 1984-85. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —I do, in two publications. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MAHER —Today a publication came on to my desk called Life Report, which is the publication of the Victorian Right to Life organisation, authorised by Mrs Margaret Tighe. It purports to give a summary of what was said in this House in the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill on 14 November last. The report of my speech on an amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) clearly misrepresents what I said. I said clearly in the debate-and I have checked it in Hansard-that I am opposed to abortion, but I opposed the amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin for certain reasons, mainly the consequences for a woman who miscarries. That is not at all clear in this report by Mrs Tighe. That was the February issue of Life Report. Subsequently, Mrs Tighe issued a pamphlet in my electorate saying `Where does Michael Maher (M.H.R. Lowe) really stand on the abortion issue?'. I have that pamphlet. It is known to Mrs Tighe that I oppose abortion. She must have read Hansard because she has made a report of the Hansard record in her magazine. She must have seen the statement I made that I oppose abortion. She must have been aware of my reasons for opposing the amendment moved by the honourable member for Franklin. She chose, for her own political reasons, to ignore that statement. I just wanted to state correctly on the record my reasons, and I thank the House for giving me this time today. The misrepresentation of my views does this lady's cause no good. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BRAITHWAITE —During the debate on the Wildlife (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill this morning, apparently the member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), in speaking to that Bill, strongly implied that I had advocated the export of endangered species of Australian birds. He took that from a Press release that I had issued. What I said in that Press release, and I continue to maintain, is that the ban on the commercial export of non-endangered native birds should be lifted in favour of a carefully regulated and humane export. I am prepared to table that Press release in further explanation. It would appear that the Opposition is keener than the Government on redressing the imbalance in the balance of trade. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his explanation. He will not get into debate. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I seek leave to table the Press release. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted to table the paper? Mr Young —What is this? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Does the Special Minister of State want me to make my personal explanation again? Mr Young —Why are we putting this into Hansard? Madam SPEAKER —We are not putting it into Hansard. Mr Young —The responsibility is with members of the Opposition to show matters to the Government if they want them included. As I have not been shown it, leave is not granted. 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 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 three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australian and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Cleeland,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Lamb,Mr McArthur,Mr Reith and Mr Staples. To the Honourable, the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the time lag between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Cowan,Mr Peter Morris and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Hollis and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: As citizens of Australia we the undersigned object strongly to any suggestion of removal of the spouse rebate. We also object to the present taxation system whereby the one-income family has a tax-free threshold of $4,595 and the two-income family has a threshold of $9,190 before tax is incurred. We believe family allowances should be increased rather than decreased as recently suggested by the Cabinet Expenditure Review Committee. We also believe that if an indirect tax is introduced that the one-income family should be exempt on items such as food and clothing. As citizens of Australia we believe that mothers should have the choice to remain at home to care for their families and not be forced into the workforce further exacerbating the ever increasing unemployment problem especially amongst the young people and family men. We are being victimised and we want something done. Your petitioners therefore beseech, that the threshold of the one-income family is boosted, that the spouse rebate is retained, that family allowances are increased or a home-maker's allowance introduced and that women in Australia working in the home be well represented at the coming Taxation Summit. Some feminist groups do not have our interests at heart nor the future of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs, (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils, (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorum rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office Agency at South Dubbo be closed. The Post Office Agency serves as community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect a registered letter. Many of us are pensioners and even the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Office. 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 Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with the recent Government decisions adding over 8c. per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c. per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c. per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices of 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. 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 the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That they are totally opposed to the decision of the Attorney-General to make an Act of Grace payment of $20,000 to the family of Kevin Barlow. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Grant be rescinded forthwith. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully show that: We object to the proposed relocation of the Army Training Facilities to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales where they shall cause interference with the access, environment and resources of the Macquarie River, its tributaries and the catchment of Burrendong Dam. We respectfully request that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled, will ensure the immediate cessation of all investigation, studies and proposals in the Central Tablelands area which include the Macquarie River, its tributaries and catchment for Military purposes and that the Macquarie River, its environs, recreational resources, historical significance and access along the entire length of the river will be preserved for present and future generations. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of Australian citizens respectfully points out that: ``We appreciate having a truly Australian National Anthem. We feel however that the wording of Advance Australia Fair is inadequate as it does not contain any reference to God.'' We, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honour- able House will take notice and action to: 1. Include reference to God in the Australian National Anthem. 2. Have the last line in each verse altered to read-``In joyful strains then let us sing God bless Australia fair''. 3. Take this action to ensure the new wording in time for the Bicentennial Year (1988). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition 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 destabilizing 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 petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: We call on the Federal Government to introduce a freeze on interest rates to be charged on housing loans by banking and non-banking institutions. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights: overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that the proposed capital gains tax: penalises small business and farming enterprises, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation, will freeze existing investment patterns, and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will abandon its ill considered capital gains tax proposal. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws the attention of the House to the fact that proposed amendments to the Child Care Act, by reducing operational funding to centres, threaten to destroy the existing high standard of child care. Your petitioners therefore request that there be no changes to current funding arrangements until a full and proper review of the Children's Services Program takes place, which includes full community consultation and tripartite discussions between three levels of Government. by Mr Cleeland. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to end its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully sheweth: That the Hawke Government should: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1.3.86; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; Maintain its tax cut commitment. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to import parity pricing and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the 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 strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia respectfully showeth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed to the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional Nuclear Reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will not allow an additional Nuclear Reactor to be established. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. 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 implications for rural and urban Australians of the Government's economic policies, particularly damaging high 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)(3.01) —When the Australian Labor Party was first established it arose out of the cries of a significant section of Australia that they were in some way oppressed. That Party, in government, has now translated those cries, with a manner and an array of policies, to ensure that the average Australian-not just the Australian in rural areas, but the Australian in urban areas-is progressively more and more disadvantaged against his colleagues who are members of the trade union movement. I find it interesting that in this debate today those Cabinet Ministers who are responsible for setting Government policy are absenting themselves from the debate. I greatly respect the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) who is at the table. But unfortunately, within the array of government decisions that emerged yesterday in a debate when we looked at the degree to which the housing policies of this Government have fallen amuck, those who take the policy decisions are not prepared to come into this place to debate them. I think it is important that the people of Australia know that at this stage the crisis point in Labor's administration has been reached. We all know that if one embarks on a journey, be it by plane, car, train or, for that matter, any mode of transport, there is what is called a point of no return. The point of no return means that a person has embarked on a journey with the hope of reaching a destination. He has traversed some part of that journey and at that point of the journey when it is a matter no longer of returning to one's origins but of working out whether one will reach one's destination, one must make some very difficult decisions. There is little doubt that the Labor Party is past the point of no return. It is past the point of no return, firstly, because it has forgotten its original charter. Secondly, by ruse and subterfuge it has persisted in policies which are progressively leading to the destruction of the average Australian, and is pursuing policies which, by virtue of their direct application, are removing the ability of productive Australia to pay our way out of the appalling increase in indebtedness with which the Government is burdening us. Two matters happened today that illustrate the degree to which in this country, in urban and rural Australia, we are rapidly falling into the same quandary. Those of us who represent rural Australia have been saying for a long time in this Parliament that the Government does not understand what is happening. The Government was elected. The breaking of the drought gave it such euphoria and contentment that it thought that, no matter what it did, the rural sector would survive. That was not so and, demonstrably, it is not so. Unless the Government changes its economic direction, thousands upon thousands of those in rural Australia today will be forced off their holdings. It is not just in rural Australian that this acute pressure is being felt. Yesterday we had a debate about housing. Today we had the release of the housing finance statistics. Honourable members will recall that during Question Time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) referred to the fact that in January new loans made for the purchase of new houses were the lowest on record-not just the lowest in recent years, but the lowest on record-that finance for housing in January fell by 15.7 per cent to the lowest monthly level in over three years, and that the total decline in housing finance in the last six months is over 30 per cent. In spite of repeated attempts by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to produce statistics to show how great things are in the housing area, the present forecast is that the commencements of housing in this financial year will fall to about 110,000, which is 20,000 below the average level set by the Fraser-Anthony coalition prior to 1983. The point is that members of the Government still have not registered what is wrong. If they had listened to AM this morning they would have understood that in a country which has a conservative government there is another way. Peter Birch, the Chief Executive of England's Abbey National Building Society, commenting about home loans and their availability in the United Kingdom, stated: It's very easy. Money is freely available, rates are coming down and an individual today buying a house shall we say for Australian dollars 100,000 would have no difficulty in getting a loan of three times annual salary for himself and one times annual salary for a wife. So if there is a joint income shall we say of $40 or $50,000, say $40,000 they would have no difficulty in raising up to $160,000. So no problem whatsoever. That is in a country ruled by a conservative government which cares for people and is concerned to redress the problems of society. What is happening in Australia? Interest rates are going up. Taxes are going up. Inflation is going up. Industrial disputations are going up. And the Government is making a mess of it. In not one area has it addressed the fundamental problems that affect the average Australian. It is a big government for big unions. It is not a good government for little people. During Question Time I referred to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on rural matters which was delivered in my electorate on 18 November 1984. Not only because the Prime Minister is inclined to resort to subterfuge but also because his memory is notably short and his ability to control his emotions is equally brief, I think it might be worth while to refer to some of his remarks. He stated: Sustained economic growth is a fundamental condition for maintaining the strength and prosperity of the Australian rural economy. He referred to `sustained economic growth'. Let us look at what is happening in Australia. Let us start with the `sustained economic growth' bit. Let us look at our overseas debt. Our total gross external debt as at 30 June 1985 was about $68,500m. Since then it has increased to over $70 billion. My colleague the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), in an excellent speech on the adjournment the other night, assessed the figure at about $75,000m or $20,000 per Australian family, or more than double the 1982 level. So much for the Prime Minister's undertaking that the Government's economic policies would provide strength and prosperity for the Australian rural economy. Our total gross external debt is going up and is more than twice the level it was three years ago. If that is not bad enough, it coincides with a record in regard to the balance of payments. All members of this place know that the balance of payments is the difference between what one earns and what one buys. This Government, month by month, is finding that the record is running at an average of about $1,000m a month. That $1,000m a month adverse balance of payments-we are spending more than we are getting-is adding to that external debt. The combination of those two factors means that our standards of living are falling. In light of that, the Government, of course, has seen itself totally hamstrung by a prices and incomes accord and a relationship with the trade union movement which means that if Simon calls Bob answers, and if Bill cries Paul says yes. The combination of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-Government drag on this Australian community has meant that the accord has imposed an interest rate regime which denies any business, any export industry, any opportunity of contributing to a redress of that adverse balance of payments problem. So we have an external debt and a continuing adverse balance of payments problem. We have a government that is persisting with a domestic economic policy that has induced a level of interest rates that is absolutely impossible for productive industry. If honourable members on the other side feel that this is all emotion, let me turn their attention to a letter in the Weekend Australian last Saturday, written by a solicitor in a small town in western New South Wales, which states: . . . for the first time in my working life I advised clients to walk off their farming properties. I recommend this story to those honourable members who pretend to be concerned about the problems with which people have been faced as a result of the policies of this Government. He said: Four years ago I acted for them when they . . . borrowed an additional amount from a bank to improve the property. He mentions that as a result of their hard work and diligence they have fallen further and further behind. They were able to get funds from a government agency for drought relief, but they now owe more than the property is worth. That is not a unique case, but a case that is reflected, sadly, in thousands of households in the western suburbs of Sydney, in the sandbelt country of Melbourne and in every regional and rural town around Australia. The level of debt is rising and the ability of those people to face tomorrow is lessening. In a climate where the future is uncertain, the inevitable consequence is not just on the breadwinner; it is on the wives and children of those who are there. Mr Punch —Ha! Mr SINCLAIR —My friend might laugh and say that they do not matter, but they are little Australians, the sorts of Australians whom he pretends to represent. They are the type of Australians he fails to represent, the type of Australians that those who take the Government's decisions have totally failed to come to this House to answer. Mr Punch —What is your answer? Mr SINCLAIR —If the honourable member feels that there is no answer, I recommend that he should read an advertisement that my Party put in the rural newspapers only a week ago. The coalition parties set down a series of 18 steps, each of which can be implemented immediately by this Government if it seeks to find a solution. Mr Punch —What is your solution? Mr SINCLAIR —There are solutions, and I recommend that the honourable member read it. I think it is important that we turn back to what the Prime Minister said in order to realise that in the basis of his rural policy speech lies the prescription for disaster; he and his colleagues refuse to answer in this Parliament for the steps they are taking, and for the steps to which they have committed themselves and on which they have failed. The Prime Minister said: We have halved inflation. Inflation is now twice that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with which we compete. Mr Hunt —Three times more. Mr SINCLAIR —It is three times more than our principal trading partners. The Prime Minister said: We will keep it below five per cent next year. It is very nearly 8 per cent plus this year and I suspect that it could easily reach double figures by June if we go ahead with this idiotic 3 per cent obligatory superannuation deal that the Prime Minister insists is part of where he is going. The Prime Minister said: We have now reached the position where at last inflation in Australia compares favourably with our trading partners . . . That was 1 1/2 years ago. What has happened since then? The Prime Minister has fallen foul of high interest rates, high taxes and the wrong economic direction. More importantly, he said: No sector stands to gain more from the reduction in interest rates we have achieved. Every one percentage point drop in interest rates means a cut of $35 million in farmers' interest bills. As I have pointed out, the result of the Prime Minister's economic policies is that farmers are going broke and interest rates have gone through the roof. I will not quote all of the literature available on the subject. We all know that the Economic Planning Advisory Council has pointed to the fact that the real value of Australia's rural products will plunge by up to 25 per cent in the current financial year; and we know that more than one-third of farmers will have negative farm incomes; and that more than 12 1/2 per cent of farmers will lose more than $25,000 this year. There is no need for me to point to the fact that the Reserve Bank of Australia has said that rural debt has risen by 21 per cent this year to $7.2 billion. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr SINCLAIR —$7.2 billion. That is twice the amount it was when the Government took over. Let us assess the Government's achievements. The Prime Minister made electoral promises-not just three or four years ago, but in November 1984-and every one of the statistics he promised to achieve has been negated. Every one of those performance figures has gone the wrong way. Why? Because these idiots on the front bench cannot come into this House to debate the charge and cannot comprehend that high interest rates, high taxes, high inflation and the wrong industrial policies are destroying the little Australian. Our coalition stands not for big unions but for all Australians. Our coalition stands for a positive economic policy. Let us get rid of those adverse economic directions and that negating of profitable industry in Australia. Let us start encouraging some export industries. If the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) were here, he would say that the Prime Minister is going to the United States of America and Europe soon; that he will get over there, big fellow that he is, and will secure some changes in the common agricultural policy and in the United States farm Bill. That is not where the problem is; it is in ourselves. This Government should realise that the problem for the Prime Minister lies in his front bench; in those idiots alongside him who blinker their eyes against the reality of the market place and who are out there answering to the plea of the Trades Hall Council in Melbourne and refusing to consider that the men, women and children of Australia deserve better. They will get better. The sooner they dismiss this Government and elect the coalition, the better off they will be. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.16) —We have waited in vain for this discredited Opposition to say something new and worthwhile. On this occasion it has put up front the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). I have to say that, if anything, he was worse than those the Opposition normally puts up on these occasions. In fact, the Opposition has so debased the currency of these matters of public importance, these urgency debates, that they are now not even covered by the media in any shape or form. One would not be surprised at that if one heard the quality of the speech we have just had to suffer from the Leader of the National Party. It is an empty motion before the House and it was backed up by worthless arguments. It is quite misleading to suggest to the House, as has the Leader of the National Party, that I am not competent to answer a debate such as this. I remind him that I am the Minister Assisting the Treasurer and that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has come in here and answered such debates as this ad nauseam over the past months; certainly since he became the Treasurer. It ill-behoves the Leader of the National Party to suggest, in the same breath as he spoke about housing, that someone who was Minister for Housing and Construction is not competent to come in here and answer in a debate such as this. It is not worthy of him and not worthy of further remarks from me. It is necessary for me to state some facts about the economy, instead of the rhetoric that we have just heard, which has done nothing more than mislead the House. It is my duty to remind the House again of the parlous state of the economy in March 1983 when the Hawke Labor Government came to office. There had been a massive increase in unemployment to 700,000, throwing hundreds of thousands of families into poverty. At that time we had double digit inflation. Mr Downer —You should find out what the Fraser Government did to change things. Mr HURFORD —We are getting a mindless interjection from the honourable member for Mayo, who is now on the committee for waste. My advice to him, as a new and rather green member, is to keep very quiet about the sorts of activities in which he is indulging, in seeking to close off waste at present. We had a blow out in the deficit to $9.6 billion. Industrial disputes were three times higher than they are in this country right now. We had the destruction of company profits. That was the legacy of the Liberal-National Party when it was in government. Yet the Opposition lectures us on how to run an economy, when we have the runs on the board and the record to show. Under the former Government we had a huge rise in real unit labour costs, flowing from the 1981-82 wages blowout, making this country uncompetitive. More than anything else, the former Government for years and years presided over a currency that was overvalued and which led to this country not being competitive in world markets. Now members opposite stand in opposition and try to lecture us on how to run a government. It is totally discreditable on their part that they seek to do this, because they were bereft of policies in government and they are bereft of policies in opposition. What policies are they putting up right now? The Treasurer, in replying to a debate such as this last week, outlined the huge fiscal credibility gap of this Opposition. It is my duty to remind the House and the people of the discredited policies that the Opposition is putting up. Let me outline the cost of some of the more outrageous promises being put forward by the Opposition at present. Firstly, it says that it will introduce income splitting, at a cost of $2,500m. Secondly, it says that it will pass on the full petrol price cut, at a cost of $1,200m. Mr Simmons —Big spenders. Mr HURFORD —Members of the Opposition are the big spenders, yet the Opposition suggests that it would be cutting government spending at the same time. These are the promises the Opposition is putting before the people; it is just another example of how discredited it is. Thirdly, the Opposition suggests that it would abolish the tax on new oil, at a cost of $420m; fourthly, it would introduce tertiary education for unemployment beneficiaries, at a cost of $600m; fifthly, it would abolish the non-cash fringe benefits tax, at a cost of $320m; and, sixthly-it is by no means the last but all that I have time for in this litany-it would allow the deductibility of entertainment expenses, at a cost of $310m. This is the sort of discredited nonsense that members of the Opposition are putting before us. It is incredible. The total cost of these promises alone amounts to $5.4 billion. I could go on with the list. This is all that they are offering at present as an alternative to the responsible policies being pursued by the Hawke Labor Government. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is aiming to top the $9.6 billion Budget deficit blowout that he left last time he was in government. In addition to the Opposition's fiscal credibility gap, its wages policy is in a mess and it cannot make up its mind whether it is going to privatise. Is it any wonder that the Leader of the Opposition's approval rating has slumped to 13 per cent? As for the current level of interest rates, let me outline the correct position rather than the view we heard today from the Leader of the National Party. If the Opposition wants a realistic assessment of current economic events it should look at the markets, which is what I will do when I return to talk about interest rates. Instead of that we heard from the Leader of the National Party today the incredible concept that we should look to Thatcher's Great Britain for the answers to our economic problems. If ever there is a country in a sad mess, it is Great Britain. Just look at its level of unemployment for a start. I suppose that members of the Opposition do not worry about unemployment; they certainly did not worry about it last time they were in government. If they were in government now we would have another bout of slashing of government spending in the current year, in a quick and untried way, so much so that many more thousands would be thrown into unemployment. Before I return to interest rates and the market, it is necessary to say that the Australian economy has enjoyed almost three years of strong growth the like of which we have not seen for many years. It is also necessary for me to remind the House that this growth arose out of the National Economic Summit Conference when there was broad community support for the economic strategy of fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously. The plan was to get economic growth up to a rate of 5 per cent a year, and we have done so; it was to reduce the high level of inflation that we inherited, and we have reduced that high level of inflation; and it was to create jobs, and we have created 600,000 or so jobs. It is a strategy which has been enormously successful and we on this side of the House are proud, as are most people in this country, that the consensus that arose out of the Economic Summit in April 1983 led to these sorts of results. It is a strategy which gave us the prices and incomes accord, and thanks to that accord not only has the inflation rate come down but also industrial disputation has come down. It is true that there was a need to slow down the economy, and that need arose because we had a balance of payments problem. The balance of payments problem was not anything to do with the volume of our exports; it was not anything to do with the volume of our imports, for the most part. The balance of payments and balance of trade problem we have at present is due to the terms of trade, and that was something that could not have been foretold. In every other instance of economic recovery in the world the terms of trade turned in favour of this country, but unexpected factors have led to the terms of trade turning against us. That is why there has been a balance of payments problem, a problem that now has to be addressed by the present Government and is being addressed by it. I repeat that at the heart of the difficulties with the dollar, and the dollar difficulties resulted from the balance of payments problem and the terms of trade closing against us, was the deterioration in the prices we received for our exports compared with the prices we paid for our imports. They turned against us. The problem has arisen from falls in the prices we receive for many of our rural and mineral commodities. We need only go through some of them. Wheat prices are an obvious problem area. Since December they have fallen by over 4 per cent, and seem sure to fall further, sadly for this country. Between June and December last year wool prices also fell by 5.5 per cent. These are the facts that we have to face-facts which on no account we could have foretold. This did lead to the necessity for a slowing down in the economy, and that slowing down has been achieved by an increase in interest rates. No one likes the increase in interest rates; nobody pretends that the high level of interest rates is not a political burden, let alone an economic burden. But the Opposition would be far more credible if it put forward its alternative instead of coming forth with all these expenditure measures. It should be saying where it would cut government spending because, true to form, that is what the Fraser Government would have been doing. It would have been slashing government spending right now, throwing more and more people onto the economic scrapheap, throwing them into unemployment and into dole queues. Okay, we have had these high interest rates and they have caused us discomfort, but there are now many signs on the horizon that those difficult days are over. It is a pleasure to say not only politically but also from the point of view of those who have, sadly, been suffering because of high interest rates. After peaking in November-December, professional interest rates eased in the early months of 1986. Ninety-day bank bill yields, after averaging around 19 1/2 per cent in December, have now moved to 17 per cent-still too high, but on the way down. Longer term bond yields have also moved down, with the 10-year yield now at around 13 1/2 per cent after averaging in excess of 15 per cent in November-December. It is clear that the market does not share the Opposition's deliberately gloomy assessment of the economy. I said I would return to what the market is saying, and that is what it is saying-there is hope on the horizon that there will be some alleviation of the inevitable burdens due to high interest rates. Against that background and increasing signs that tight financial conditions are having an impact on demand, we have taken the view that monetary policy should not stand in the way of any natural fall in market interest rates. The Government considers this validation of the falls in market rates not as a weakening of the stance of monetary policy but as an appropriate response to an easing in the demand for credit and domestic spending. We are conscious of the dangers of allowing monetary policy to carry too much of the burden in the current policy mix. Monetary conditions will continue to be adjusted in line with underlying economic developments. However, attempts to bring interest rates down ahead of market judgment would be counter-productive. So the answer is in the sorts of policies that we have been carrying through. Given the interest rates that the Leader of the National Party has drawn attention to in the rural sector, despite the fact that his constituency has totally lost confidence in his Party-one wonders who the National Party now represents-I want to say something about the things he has raised. He tries to sell the line that this Government is responsible for the difficulties being encountered. I wanted in the last minute available to me to do the Leader of the National Party the courtesy of referring to some of the things he mentioned in his speech, but unfortunately I have not the time to do so. I think I need to make my main point again. The problems of this country are very much the direct result of the terms of trade. The terms of trade, which turned against us, have led to balance of payments problems which in turn have led to dollar exchange problems. We have addressed those problems in the most appropriate way. Unfortunately that has meant suffering in some quarters in this country due to high interest rates. As I have indicated in my speech, those interest rates are now on the way down. I am looking forward to the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who will speak for the Government in this debate, pointing out the way in which this country is on that growth path which has led on the one hand to a reduction in the rate of inflation and on the other to the growth of jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(3.31) —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford)-and that is the rub-comes in here to tell us about debasing the currency. He comes in here to explain the Government's economic policies to us and to tell us about the effect that interest rates are having on the economy and housing. He does this while the Treasurer (Mr Keating) sulks in his tent. Of course, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is so insecure about his own economic credentials that at the very outset of his contribution to the debate he questioned his own competence to be making this speech in the House. Mr Hurford —I did not. That is a lie. I did not in any way. Mr MacKellar —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister at the table used the expression: `That is a lie'. He should withdraw immediately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Did the Minister use that term? Mr Hurford —I said he was lying. Yes, he was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister knows that-- Mr Hurford —I withdraw `lie' and suggest that he is misleading the House with the incorrect information he is giving. I am Minister Assisting the Treasurer and I am proud to have been asked to respond on behalf of the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has withdrawn. If honourable members opposite had not been interjecting and had been listening to the Minister, they would have heard that he did withdraw when he stood up. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw his remark and imputation against the Minister at the table. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair did not hear what the honourable member for the Northern Territory said. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not aware of the remark of mine the Minister takes exception to because as I-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for the Northern Territory will be aware, if he studies the Standing Orders, that it is not necessary for the Minister to take objection. Any member of the House, as indeed the honourable member for Warringah did, can enter into the debate to protect another member. The honourable member for McMillan might advise the House what comments he considered to be unparliamentary and need to be withdrawn. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is taken on the basis that I believe that the honourable member for the Northern Territory was giving the impression that the Minister was lying. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I might say that members on my left should listen to the honourable member in silence so that the Chair can hear interjections and correct them if necessary. I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr EVERINGHAM —The Prime Minister today said that everyone would like to see lower interest rates. I think the point of this matter of public importance-the damagingly high interest rates that have been inflicted on the economy and the people of this country by the Government's economic policies-is something that is causing harm to the rural sector, small business, big business, the housewife and just about everyone in the community. Indeed, I have some personal knowledge of the harmful effects of the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Labor Government. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) was kind enough to inform this House that I was resettling my family in Brisbane for educational purposes. I thought that I would retail the experience of buying a unit in Darwin and another house in Brisbane. The sorry situation of the real estate market caused by high interest rates has to be seen to be believed. Recently, I saw houses in very good residential areas of Brisbane passed in without a bid at two auctions. Various members of the real estate industry present have simply given the explanation that no one is willing to buy with interest rates at such high levels. The housing situation is grim when one can virtually take one's pick in the Darwin home unit market. People who have invested a great deal of money in providing housing have found themselves left in a perilous situation with the interest accumulating against their original loan and the strong likelihood that they will end up insolvent. Interest rates have gone up in this country by about 7 per cent since the December 1984 election when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that in fact they would be reduced. This has been as a direct result of deliberate Government policy, particularly since last November when, of course, the world's greatest Treasurer opted to push up interest rates rather than take a responsible position and adjust wages policy by renegotiation of the accord, cutting government spending and the deficit. As I said, high interest rates are due at least in part to the high Government deficit. The Hawke Government has run cumulative Budget deficits of $20 billion in the three Keating Budgets-a greater deficit than that in seven Fraser Government Budgets. The Prime Minister told us during Question Time today to look at his Government's record. Well, let us look at his Government's record. The Hawke Government is the biggest spending government in Australian history, as a proportion of gross domestic product, and has the biggest deficits on record. The current annual rate of deficit is running at $14.4 billion, a blowout of $3 billion on the Budget forecast. There is absolutely no sign of any J curve that we have heard so much about 12 months after devaluation. Interest rates have never been as high in nominal terms and are higher in real terms than for any period since the Great Depression. Nominal short-term interest rates in Australia today are 17.3 per cent compared with 14.5 per cent 12 months ago. By comparison, the rate in the United States of America is 7.7 per cent, Japan 6.1 per cent and Germany 4.6 per cent. The rates of all of those countries have gone down in the past 12 months. Long term interest rates are also higher in Australia than they are in any of the countries which are our major trading partners. The Treasurer will say that Australia needs high interest rates to protect the dollar. But the truth is that the dollar is weak because of high spending by the Hawke Government, the high deficit and the unrealistic accord deal allowing excessive wage growth. Our inflation rate of 8.2 per cent is double, generally speaking, that of our trading partners and four times that of our major trading partner, Japan. Wages are pushing up inflation and labour costs by comparison with our trading partners. The failure of the Government to pass on the full effect of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price reductions will put more pressure on the productive sectors of the Australian economy and add further to inflation. Motor vehicle registrations are down 18 per cent in the last two months and, I understand, are down catastrophically in the last couple of weeks. The latest figures show that the overseas debt is now at $70 billion or $4,500 for every man, woman and child in Australia. The level of unemployment is 7.8 per cent and is running higher than for all but five months of the 86 full months of the Fraser Government. This Government should go for the illness, not for the symptom of the devalued dollar, by tackling the real issues which are big government, big spending and the big sweetheart deal with the unions. I suppose the Treasurer would say if he were here in the House that interest rates have fallen in past weeks. However, they have dropped only marginally and, indeed, they are having a dreadful effect on business throughout this country. The Australian Financial Review back as far as 17 February stated: The number of business failures has jumped sharply in the past six weeks as high interest rates begin to take their toll. Bank prime rates have now hovered around the 20 per cent mark for four months and according to accountants specialising in insolvency, the rate of business failures will accelerate in coming months. I hate the accord, the so-called cornerstone of the Government's policy. It prevents people from getting work. They are squeezed out of work by what Marx called the job secure labour aristocracy-the Australian Council of Trade Unions push that looks after its employed members and does not give a damn about the unemployed. It pushes up interest rates on home finance, business finance and construction finance; it prevents new jobs and it squeezes families facing higher mortgage payments. It is a system in which the participants, the ACTU and this Government, look after themselves to the cost of everyone else in Australia. The implications for rural and urban Australians of the Government's economic policies, particularly damaging high interest rates, are catastrophic. The Government must do something today to prevent the infliction of this hardship on ordinary Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.42) —I welcome the opportunity today to speak on the matter of public importance, namely: The implications for rural and urban Australians of the Government's economic policies, particularly damaging high interest rates. The Opposition speakers have concentrated on damaging high interest rates and have completely ignored the implications and the effects of the Government's economic policies on the Australian economy. Over the last 48 hours we have had in this Parliament a phone-in protest from the rural sectors of Australia. My office has been a recipient of a lot of those calls. I have here today the notes of the calls that have been coming in. There are about five or six calls recorded on each of approximately 12 pages. Most of the people who have called in have put interest rates as one of the very serious problems. We understand that. Not only the rural sector but all Australians are feeling the effects of the high interest rates. What has come through loud and clear is their absolute and total disappointment with the type of representation they have had in this place for many years. A lot of these calls have come from the electorates-I queried where they have come from-of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I said to these people: `What are your members doing for you?' They said: `They cannot do anything. They are absolutely impotent as far as we are concerned'. In fact, some of them have said to me that they have caused much of the problem that we are dealing with today. Let us look at the effects of the economic policies of the Government. Let us look at economic growth, one of the factors which have a big bearing on urban and rural Australia. A lot of the Australian economy is based on producing goods that sell in Australia. In fact, over the last 30 years one of our big problems has been that we have not developed an export-oriented base for Australia other than the rural sector. The rural sector still produces approximately 46 per cent of our exports. The damning thing as far as previous governments were concerned was that they did not manage the economy of Australia in a way that allowed it to be spread more across the total spectrum. That is one of Australia's real problems. (Quorum formed) Prior to the unfortunate interruption, I was explaining to the House the implications for rural and urban Australia of the policies of the previous Government. I was trying to detail to the House that many of our problems today come from the fact that correct decisions were not taken in the previous Government's reign. Today under a Labor government we have in place policies which have led to economic growth which has averaged just on 5 per cent whereas it averaged 2.1 per cent a year under the previous Administration. Job growth has been especially strong in recent quarters; employment is up 292,000 in the year to January 1986. From the April 1983 trough, employment is up 590,000, well ahead of our target of creating 500,000 new job in the three years from our election in 1983. The unemployment rate is down from 10.4 per cent in September 1983 to 7.8 per cent in January 1985. Let us look at consumption. What are people in Australia consuming? How poor is the Australian community? Retail sales have continued to rise strongly, increasing 3.2 per cent in the December quarter 1985, to be 12.7 per cent higher than they were a year before. Car registrations on monthly figures were down 6.4 per cent in January 1986 from an unusual high in November 1985. Smooth seasonally adjusted figures show a very steady pattern running at a very healthy annual rate of about 650,000 registrations-70,000 more than in final years of the Liberals. Whilst dealing with the motor car industry, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) today gave to the House details about our motor car companies. For instance, Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd is very confident that its Falcons will be exported to Europe. That is a matter that in this country, under the previous conservatives, was completely neglected. The conservative parties, including the National Party, believed and had this crazy perception that the rural sector could carry this country forever. They let down their own constituency. Just look at the Japanese motor car industry and compare it with Australia's in that same period. At one stage back in the early 1950s the Japanese were producing no more cars than the Australian industry. Today Australia is producing fewer than 500,000 units and the Japanese are producing in excess of 11 million units. Where were the policies of members of the conservative government to develop the industries of Australia? They did not have any. What did they do? They wanted the rural sector of Australia to carry half the load. That is why, from out there today, I have received pages and pages of phone calls. Every one of these people has told me that Ian Sinclair has done absolutely nothing for the rural sector. Honourable members opposite should come to my office and listen to some of the calls. They should know better than to propose the sort of idiocies they have proposed here today when they started attacking the unions and the accord. Let us look at some of the figures in relation to wages growth under their conservative government. In 1981-82 what was the rate of wages growth? At what rate was the cost structure going up? It was going up by 14.7 per cent. In 1982-83 it was down to 11.2 per cent. Let us look at what the accord has now done. In 1983-84 it was 8.5 per cent and in 1984-85 it was 6.9 per cent, and the figures are still moving in the same direction. The Opposition ridicules those sorts of policies that relate to the accord and says that the accord is damaging the country. I think those figures indicate that the country is going in the right direction. People who are writing cheques every week would be quite happy to see that inflation is coming under control. Let us have a look at another area-industrial disputes-and at the results of the policies of confrontation that honourable members opposite carried out. In the year to October 1982 3.2 million days were lost. What was the figure for the year to October 1984? It was 1.3 million. That shows a massive reduction in disputation in the workplace in Australia. Yet honourable members opposite have the cheek to come in here and ridicule the accord. Let us look at some of the sectors that honourable members opposite are supposed to represent, such as real private business fixed investment. The very latest statistics show that in nominal terms total new fixed capital expenditure by private enterprise is expected to rise by 20.8 per cent this financial year. That sector is really worried about high interest rates, is it not, when a rise in investment of 20.8 per cent is expected this financial year and it is projected that there will be a rise next financial year of 27 per cent. If the business community is taking the view that things are so disastrous and that there is such a crisis, as has been claimed by the Opposition, why would it be taking those decisions? Why has there been a 20 per cent increase in investment this year and why is there a projected 27 per cent increase next year? Business is confident that the Hawke Labor Government's policies are working. It is confident, as is the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd, which has shown that it will export some of its cars in future. Many industries around Australia, in the rural and urban sectors, have that confidence. Every honourable member of this House can rest assured that the policies we have in place are working and will continue to work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the forty-ninth general report of the Committee and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ANDREW —I thank the House. The report which I have just tabled covers the activities of the Twenty-eighth Public Works Committee during the period from 28 February 1985, when it formed, to 31 December 1985. During that period the Committee presented 16 reports encompassing a wide variety of public works ranging from a submarine escape training facility at Garden Island, Western Australia, for the Royal Australian Navy to a new Commonwealth Law Courts building at Parramatta. The total estimated cost of work examined by the Committee during the report period was more than $255m. The report mentions at length the circumstances which required a relatively large number of proposed works being exempted from Committee scrutiny on the grounds of urgency. There were four exemptions during the year. The estimated cost of work exempted was more than $214m. The Committee, and, I am sure the House, would not wish to see a repeat of this in future. One very significant and disturbing development which has emerged in recent years is the preponderance of proposals referred to the Committee late in Budget sittings. I suggest that, with proper planning, referrals could be spread more evenly throughout the year, thereby avoiding the possibility of the Committee being unable to report on proposals referred late in the Budget sittings. It must be emphasised, nevertheless, that the Committee has, and recognises, a responsibility to Parliament to carry out its functions in a thorough and expeditious manner. I believe the record shows that the Committee, since its establishment in 1913, has played a significant role in being the watch-dog of the Parliament. The Parliament must determine how real it wants this watch-dog analogy to be. The Committee cannot be a chihuahua; it is too experienced, too prestigious and too substantial to be a lapdog. The Public Works Committee sees its role as that of a loyal but aggressive doberman pinscher, effectively guarding the responsible expenditure of public moneys. Allowing exempted work to proceed will turn the Committee into a faithful but ineffectual spayed labrador. The Committee represents the interests and aspirations of all Australians on whose behalf and for whom Commonwealth public works are conceived and constructed. The Committee intends to maintain that role during the present Parliament and, indeed, in the longer term. I thank the House. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 244th report of the Committee entitled `Munitions Production Trust Account' and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —I thank the House. This brief inquiry by the Committee into the Munitions Production Trust Account was initiated following unfavourable comments made by the Auditor-General in his September 1984 report. The Committee examined the operation of the Munitions Production Trust Account and found that it exists in addition to each of the trust accounts used to operate the Government-owned munitions factories. This trust account was established on 17 February 1956 under section 62a of the Audit Act 1901 to replace the Manufacture of Munitions Trust Account which had operated since 1940. The purpose of the Munitions Production Trust Account as defined at the time of its creation was to finance the manufacture of munitions in government factories, annexes and industry for departments of the Commonwealth and other governments and authorities; and any other approved service of a munitions factory or annex. The Munitions Production Trust Account can be described as a holding account, financing the production of munitions. It enables factories to obtain reimbursement for production, undertaken in advance of payment, from the Department of Defence or overseas customers. I can see how riveted the honourable members present in the Parliament are by the topic of this report. Over recent years responsibility for the trust account has been variously with the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Productivity, the Department of Defence Support and most recently, from December 1984, the Department of Defence. The Auditor-General suggested that a separate trust account could be established if necessary to handle overseas transactions where munitions are sold to overseas countries. The Committee discovered that an existing trust account could quite adequately handle overseas munitions transactions; namely, the more general trust account called the Defence-Projects for Other Governments and International Bodies Trust Account. The Committee questions why this trust account and the Munitions Production Trust Account, with their overlapping functions, have not been rationalised. The Committee concluded that the Munitions Production Trust Account has not been managed well over recent years, with financial records being lost, important procedures not followed and a lack of appropriate control documents. The Committee believes that many of these problems may have arisen because of the form and nature of this trust account, and that such an arrangement may leave itself open to inefficient accounting and management, together with a lack of direct responsibility or an interest in the efficient operation of the trust account. The Committee is also concerned that the Department of Finance has not taken more interest in the operation of the Munitions Production Trust Account and has not become more involved in resolving important problems with this trust account. The Committee noted that the Munitions Production Trust Account causes the factories to carry out double accounting with increased administrative costs. It concluded that the munitions factories' financial statements would be more accurate, informative and be consistent with accepted accounting standards without this device. The Committee concluded that there could be no cogent reasons for continuing to maintain the Munitions Production Trust Account. I commend the report to honourable members. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the additional estimates for 1985-86. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1985-86 under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget or foisted upon it by courts and tribunals which have no responsibility for the fiscal consequences of their decisions. Also provided for are additional requirements of an ongoing nature and the reappropriation of certain amounts, necessitated by transfers of functions which are unable to be effected under existing legal authorities. The principal factors underlying the requirements are certain unavoidable cost and price increases and exchange rate fluctuations since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the costs of awards and determinations made since that time and to meet the cost of other factors affecting wages and salaries, such as staffing increases. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of a wage and salary increase that might arise out of the current national wage case hearings. Any such increase will be met under the separate appropriation provisions in section 5 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act, 1985-86. Of the additional appropriations in the three additional Estimates Bills totalling $940.3m, $755.7m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $183.6m in Appropriation Bill (No. 4), and $1.1m in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1985-86 reflecting the Government's continued determination to achieve savings in expenditure for ongoing programs wherever possible. These savings, amounting to $261.9m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document, `Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations', which has been distributed to members. After allowing for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net increase of $678.3m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays, encompassing both annual and standing appropriations, this increase amounts to one per cent. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. An estimated $297.8m is for wages and salaries, of which $173.3m is for defence and $124.5m for non-defence purposes, to meet increases in award rates, other wage and salary costs and a small increase of 0.2 per cent in budget-approved average staffing levels. These provisions do not include the wage and salary components of additional funds being provided to certain statutory authorities funded under one line appropriations. A sum of $10.7m is provided for the Attorney-General's Department by way of the reappropriation of funds to the Australian Legal Aid Office following delays in the merger of that office with the Legal Services Commission of New South Wales. This amount has been fully offset from savings in amounts which were to be paid direct to the New South Wales Government in 1985-86 had the merger proceeded. A sum of $16.9m is included under the Department of Community Services to implement revised subsidy arrangements for child care services. Under the new arrangements, subsidy is paid on the basis of the number of places centres have for children and varies according to the number aged under or over three years. This replaces subsidies previously based on the ratio of qualified staff to children. Also, $95.9m is sought for the Department of Defence to meet the effect on the purchase of new equipment and stores, of exchange rate variations and other cost and price increases since the Budget. The effect of these increases has been partially offset by reduced requirements for certain naval refit projects and the effect of the Government's decision on oil prices. A sum of $14.9m is included under the Education portfolio reflecting the reappropriation to the Department of Education of funds originally appropriated to the Commonwealth Schools Commission following the transfer to the Department of program administration for general recurrent grants to schools. Cost supplementation of those grants is also provided for. Also $70m is included within the Trade portfolio to enable the Australian Trade Commission to help eliminate the backlog of eligible claims under the export market development grants scheme. This represents significant additional support to the export sector over the level provided in the 1985-86 Budget. A total of $16.2m is sought for the Department of Veterans' Affairs for payments to specialists and local medical officers in respect of medical services provided to veterans and their dependants. The rise is mainly due to the short term transfer of the payments function from the Health Insurance Commission to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to provide for the manual payment of a backlog in accounts, and is fully offset from savings in amounts appropriated to the Health Insurance Commission in the Budget. A relatively small component, around $2.5m, of the increase is provided for increased demand for services and increases in rates and costs. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 appropriations totalling $183.6m, additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1985-86, are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill No. 2 1985-86 are as follows: First, a sum of $8m is provided for the first instalment of a payment of $30m to New South Wales for the construction, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of stage I of the National Maritime Museum. Secondly, $21m is provided for increased Commonwealth assistance under natural disaster relief arrangements due to higher than estimated expenditure by Queensland and Western Australia on relief in respect of major natural disasters which have occurred since the Budget. Thirdly, $52.3m is included to meet an upward revision to grants payable to the States and the Northern Territory under formal agreements in respect of Medicare public hospital arrangements. The increase reflects finalisation of 1984-85 hospital utilisation data which resulted in back payments for 1984-85, a higher base for indexation of the 1985-86 grant, and the effect of the recent determination raising the sessional rate for visiting medical officers in New South Wales public hospitals. Fourthly, $19.5m is provided for grants, authorised from 1 January 1986, to compensate users in all States for the effects of dumping duties on fertilisers. The grants are to be applied by the States to offset the effect of the imposition of dumping duties on imports of fertilisers and to make payment to manufacturers so that they are not disadvantaged by the consequent reduction in import duties. The scheme is to be reviewed following the completion of the review of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and of the study of Australian fertiliser production and consumption, by 30 April 1986. Lastly, $16.7m is included for payment to the Parliament House Construction Authority because of the better than expected progress with construction in the last six months of 1985. Given the proximity of the 1988 completion date, advantage has been taken of the good site conditions to maximise progress. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 appropriates funds totalling $1.1m additional to those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1985-86, which funds are sought for the recurrent and capital purposes of the parliamentary departments. The principal reasons for the increases sought are cost and price increases since the Budget. Details of the proposed additional expenditures are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) 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)(4.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill reintroduces into the Parliament the bulk of the provisions of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 that were debated in the Senate but then blocked on 8 October 1985. It does not contain those provisions concerning the structure and composition of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust which were rejected by the Senate. The Bill includes a number of new amendments that are not related to the Trust amendments which are necessary to ensure that aspects of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme operate in an appropriate manner. It is because some of these new amendments are likely to affect an ongoing appropriation that the Bill must originate in this House. The primary function of the Bill is, as it was of the 1985 Bill, to implement essential reforms relating to the Trust. These reforms are intended to define clearly the Trust's objectives and duties: to strengthen the Trust's ability to manage and invest the superannuation fund in the most effective and efficient manner; to enhance its accountability both to the Parliament and the contributors; and to enable it to operate in competitive financial markets with a degree of freedom and flexibility in investment no less than that afforded the larger private sector superannuation funds. I should make it clear to honourable members that the pressing necessity for reform, the general thrust of this legislation, and its urgency, were matters that were recognised and supported by all the parties when the 1985 Bill was debated in the Senate. That previous Bill was the culmination of a comprehensive process of review by this Government of the operations of the Trust; a review process which included an inquiry into the management and operations of the Trust by the now Auditor-General, Mr J. V. Monaghan, and an examination of a number of matters associated with the conclusions and recommendations of Mr Monaghan's report by a working party. In addition, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations examined and reported on the 1985 Bill. While approving generally of the provisions and welcoming the Government's prompt action in introducing the Bill, the Standing Committee made four recommendations proposing the insertion of additional material. On behalf of the Government, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) accepted three of the Standing Committee's recommendations. The relevant amendments were incorporated in the previous Bill in the Committee stage of its consideration in the Senate. Of the three amendments, that relating to the method of selection of Trust members is no longer relevant because this Bill does not seek to alter the existing basic structure of the Trust or the existing method of selection of Trust members. The other two amendments form part of the Bill now before the House. None of the provisions of the 1985 Bill concerning the accountability of the Trust, its objective and duties and its power to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund drew unfavourable reaction during debate in the Senate. The sole matter of contention was the proposed structure of the Trust. Criticism of that proposed structure focused on what the Opposition and the Australian Democrats wrongly characterised as Australian Council of Trade Unions control. That criticism failed to recognise that the proposed structure of the Trust did not provide for ACTU control but rather for the ACTU to act as a channel, a conduit, through which industrial organisations representing the bulk of the contributors to the Fund could put forward persons suitable for nomination to the Trust. The ACTU is the peak council of these organisations and it was cast solely in that co-ordination role. As honourable members will be aware, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) issued a joint statement on 16 December 1985 concerning guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. The Government is seeking comment on the draft standards which are a framework for further discussion and development in co-operation with interested groups. One part of the draft operational standards proposes standards for control of new superannuation funds which envisage equal numbers of trustees nominated by members and employers, or unions and employer organisations where appropriate. It is also the Government's intention that, where the productivity award is paid into existing schemes, member-union representation should be encouraged in respect of those schemes. Until the details of the control aspect of the draft operational standards have been firmed up and there is general agreement on the most suitable structure for the controlling bodies of superannuation funds, it would not be appropriate to make any significant changes to the structure of the Trust. Accordingly, for the time being, the Trust will remain as presently constituted under the Act, that is, a full time member and two part time members-all members of the Trust being nominated by the Minister for appointment by the Governor-General. One change, however, that is being made is to remove the provision that permits the part time position of members' representative on the Trust to be held by a pensioner and which requires pensioner organisations to be involved in the nomination process. Because members' accumulated contributions are paid out of the Fund on retirement, pensioners and their organisations have no further interest in the performance of the Trust and the Fund. For this reason this part time member position has, in practice, only ever been held by a contributor to the scheme and the amendment being made will ensure that this arrangement continues. The Government recognises that, in today's intensely competitive business environment, the task of managing and investing the Fund, one of the largest superannuation funds in Australia, will demand all the skill and expertise of the members of the Trust. The Government is confident that the present Trust members are equal to this task. However, the question of the size and structure of the Trust will be re-examined in the light of both developments in operational standards for superannuation funds and the demands placed on the existing Trust members. Other major features of the 1985 Bill relating to the Trust have been retained. The objective and the duties of the Trust are clearly defined. The Bill significantly enhances the accountability of the Trust both to contributors and, as a statutory authority, to the Parliament. The Trust will be required to inform contributors and organisations representative of contributor interests about the management and investment of the Fund, taking into account the need to protect sensitive commercial information. Members of the Trust will be required to divulge to their fellow Trust members any interests they may have that could impinge on their duties and responsibilities, whether of a pecuniary nature or otherwise, and whether direct or indirect. The Trust will be required to consider the import of any statement of government policy relevant to its functions that may be provided to it by the Minister. Particulars of any such statement, the consideration given and the action taken, if any, will be reported in the Trust's annual report or any interim report. The Government expects that the Trust will endeavour to accommodate both the letter and the spirit of publicly stated government policies bearing on its functions but recognises also that the Trust has responsibilities to contributors. Accountability will be further enhanced by requiring the Trust to furnish to the Minister an interim annual report, together with financial statements, in any circumstance where it is unable to meet its obligation to report to the Parliament within the time specified in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Interim annual reports and financial statements will be tabled in the Parliament. The Trust's investment powers will also be significantly enhanced. Investment will be defined in the widest possible terms to include any expenditure designed to obtain a present or future financial return. The Trust will be empowered to utilise external investment management, if considered appropriate, to underwrite or sub-underwrite investments and to control, manage or to protect the value of its investments, or to enhance or protect the return from any investment. In recognition of the nature of the Trust's operations and that the independence of that operation free from direction is essential, the Bill enables the Trust to employ the staff necessary to carry out its function under terms and conditions determined with the approval of the Minister. Trust staff not covered by the mobility provisions of the Public Service Act will be able to compete for all advertised vacancies in the Australian Public Service. The present staff attached to the Trust are officers of the Department of Finance. They will have the option of accepting offers of employment with the Trust or remaining as departmental officers. It is expected that there will be few, if any, of the present staff who decline offers of employment with the Trust. In addition to the implementation of reforms essential to the efficient and effective operation of the Trust, the Bill incorporates a number of other amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976. The powers of a secretary to a department under the Public Service Act will be conferred on the Commissioner for Superannuation, who is charged with administering all elements of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme not relating to the management and investment of the Fund. An anomalous situation arising from a deficiency in the original drafting of the Act that has the effect of unintentionally making certain spouses and children of deceased pensioners ineligible for benefits will be corrected. This is one of the new amendments that may affect future appropriations. The provisions relating to the issue, revocation and variation of benefit classification certificates are being amended following the recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to set aside the decision of the Commissioner for Superannuation to issue a benefit classification certificate in relation to Mr P. J. Bewley. The amendments are in accord with the intended purpose of the provisions and clarify that the provisions are to have the meaning attributed to them prior to the Tribunal's decision rather than the meaning adopted by the Tribunal. The amendments are to have effect from 1 July 1976, the date of commencement of the principal Act, but will not affect the Tribunal's decision in relation to Mr Bewley. The Bill also introduces a new provision to allow flexibility in arrangements where persons transfer from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme to another superannuation scheme without necessarily changing employment. This amendment may also affect future appropriations. Finally, the Bill contains amendments to the cost recovery arrangements under the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976. The amendments will enable the Minister to: Limit an employer's liability to the cost of the employer-financed share of any benefit that accrued under the scheme to an employee for service with that employer; Determine that employers who, prior to 1 July 1981, were treated as if exempt from the requirement to meet the cost of superannuation benefits, are formally relieved of the pre-1981 liability; and Require an employer to meet its liability to the Commonwealth on a pay-as-you-go basis as if the scheme were funded, rather than let the liability build up until benefits are eventually paid. There is no financial impact on the Government as a result of the changes in respect of the Trust. By regulations made under the Act, all costs involved in the management and investment of the Fund, including staff costs, are borne by the Fund. The Government expects that removal of restrictions on the investment powers of the Trust as proposed in this Bill will enable greater returns to be generated by the Fund for the benefit of contributors. There are no implications for additional expenditure or revenue by conferring Secretary powers on the Commissioner for Superannuation. Minimal future additional costs will result from the changes correcting the anomalous disentitlement from benefits of certain children and spouses. To date, only one case of disentitlement has been identified. The interpretation of the medical classification provisions adopted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in its recent decision is not only contrary to the purpose of the provisions, but would have significant additional cost implications if allowed to stand. The Commonwealth would have little or no protection against the risk, and thus the cost, of premature retirement or death because of a physical or mental condition existing at the time a person became a contributor. Thus, the amendments will ensure that the cost of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme does not increase as a result of the Tribunal's decision. While speaking of the cost of the Commonwealth scheme, the Minister for Finance has asked that I emphasise that, as indicated in this Press release dated 5 December 1985, allowances to be treated as salary for contribution and benefit purposes are to be confined to those presently contemplated by the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations. Where moves are made to have further categories of allowances recognised, immediate legislative action will be taken to ensure that they are not treated as salary. The proposed power to modify the Act by regulations in relation to contributors transferring to other superannuation schemes will not of itself have any financial implications. Additional cost, if any, will depend upon the particular arrangements adopted in specific cases. The employers that, under the cost recovery arrangements operating prior to 1 July 1981, were treated as if exempt from any liability would, but for the proposed changes, technically have a legal liability to the Commonwealth for the unpaid amounts. However, in practice, because the employers concerned would require additional funds from the Budget to meet the unpaid contributions, the payments by, and to, the Commonwealth would balance out, leaving the budgetary situation no different from what will be the case under the proposed amendment. All parties have acknowledged the urgency of the reforms in relation to the Trust incorporated in this Bill. To delay further their introduction will compound the damage already done to the interests of the more than 300,000 contributors to the Fund by the failure to pass the 1985 Bill. I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for major reforms to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to better suit the needs of the industry. The reforms are consistent with the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities' released as a white paper on 29 January 1986. The reforms will streamline the operation of the Corporation, make it more cost effective and will distribute the cost of funding its operation more evenly across levy payers. Associated with this Bill are the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill, the Grape Research Levy Bill, the Grape Research Levy Collection Bill and the Wine Research (Repeal) Bill. Together these form a package of measures for funding the Corporation, for bringing wine research into line with the provisions of the Rural Industries Research At 1985, thus providing a more stable funding environment, and for establishing grape research arrangements consistent with the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act. This package of legislation and the decision to establish as a separate entity a non-statutory Wine and Grape Industry Advisory Council was developed following some three years of consultations between the Government and the main organisations within the wine and grape industries. The levy for funding the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation has remained unchanged for 13 years. Some meaningful activity has survived largely because erosion of the real value of the levy by inflation has been partly offset by increased vintages. However, when this Government took office some three years ago certain industry interests expressed concern that the Corporation's funding was totally inadequate for it to be effective, but Corporation moves to increase the levy were opposed by large winemakers. Against this background a committee which included leaders of major national organisations within the wine and grape industries was established to facilitate discussion with the Government on the future of the Corporation and other matters of major importance to the industry. Not all sectors of the industry support this package in full. Some of the large winemakers with the expertise to carry out their own export promotion, et cetera, are opposed to the existence of the Corporation and object to levies upon them being used to finance such a body. However, other sectors of the industry strongly favour continuation of the Corporation. These winemakers support the concept of general administrative backing for export promotion being funded from levy proceeds, with participation in export promotion being voluntary and on a fee for service basis. The Government is firmly convinced that continuation of the Corporation is in the best long term interest of the industry as a whole. This Bill therefore provides for its continuation but introduces changes which the Government believes constructively address the concerns raised by the larger winemakers. The decision to legislate for funding grape research follows consideration of an industry request for this. Some grapegrowers have expressed opposition to proceeding with grape research at this time. However, they are very much in the minority. The Government believes that an industry-wide commitment to research is essential if the industry's full potential is to be realised. It is therefore fully prepared to play its part and respond to the industry request by providing a funding environment which will serve to achieve this. All interests favour placing wine research funding on a statutory basis. The proposals embodied in this and the associated Bills thus follow full consultation with the industry and very careful consideration of all relevant issues. The Bill provides for the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation to undertake a range of functions similar to those embodied in the principal Act. However, as production-oriented research is being catered for under the Rural Industries Research Act, clause 6 of the Bill provides for deletion of reference to this function. An important change is the way the Corporation will operate in future and its powers have been revised to reflect this. The Bill provides the Corporation with maximum flexibility to apply the user pays principle in financing its operations. Explicitly, clause 7 empowers the Corporation to charge fees to recover costs associated with the control of exports and for the provision of services including co-ordinating export promotion activities. Thus the burden of payment rests on those using the service and the basic cost of funding the Corporation can be minimised. In keeping with the functions envisaged for the Corporation, the power of the Corporation to buy, sell or otherwise engage in trade in grape products on a commercial basis is removed. This power has not been used by the Corporation. In the past the Corporation has been the only forum in which representatives from the interdependent grapegrowing and winemaking sectors have met on a regular formalised basis. As a result there has been a tendency for it to be used as a forum for airing issues concerning industry or Government policy and it is arguable that the attention and effort of the Corporation have been diverted from its commercial functions. The Corporation's role is dealing with commercial activities, essentially associated with export promotion and regulation. The Government believes that the commercial roles of statutory marketing authorities require an approach to the composition and selection of the corporation boards quite different from that which has applied in the past. It is not appropriate that the Board comprise persons to represent various sectors of the industry but rather that they have the skills appropriate to their corporate responsibilities. Clause 9 of the Bill reflects the decision to streamline the Corporation's membership, which will be reduced from 14 to eight. The membership will comprise an independent Chairperson, one Commonwealth Government member and six other members to be selected from a wide spectrum of business on the basis of their professional qualifications and work experience in one or more of the fields of winemaking, grapegrowing, marketing, finance, administration or business management. The term of membership will be for a period of up to three years but members will be eligible for re-appointment. Part IV of the Bill provides for the establishment of a Wine and Brandy Corporation Selection Committee to identify and nominate persons for appointment as specially qualified members of the Corporation by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Selection Committee shall comprise a presiding member selected by the Minister and other members who will be appointed from nominations put forward by declared winemaker organisations. The industry, which provides the levy proceeds for funding the Corporation, will thus play a major part in determining who will sit on the Committee. At this time the relevant organisations are the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia and the Australian Winemakers Forum. Members of the Selection Committee will not be eligible for appointment to the Corporation for at least 12 months after the time their membership of the Committee ceased. The Bill contains a number of requirements of the Corporation to increase its accountability to the industry it serves and to Parliament through the Minister. The main provision to make the Corporation more accountable to industry members is the requirement, covered in Part IVA of the Bill, for it to convene an annual meeting of representatives of the industry. The annual meeting is to provide an opportunity for industry representatives to consider the most recent annual report of the Corporation, to receive an address by the Chairperson with respect to the performance of the Corporation during that year and to question the members of the Corporation concerning any aspect of its activities. More than one meeting may be held if considered appropriate by the Corporation. Members of the executives of declared winemaker organisations would be invited to attend the meetings. As the Corporation is accountable to these bodies it would not be appropriate for the most senior executive members to be members of the Corporation. The presidents and deputy presidents, or equivalent office holders of national winemaker bodies, will therefore be ineligible for appointment to the Corporation while they remain in office. Other arrangements to ensure that the Corporation carries out its functions in a business like manner and which also provide the basis for its relationship with the Minister are included in the Bill. For example, Division 1 of Part VA provides that the Corporation will be required to prepare corporate plans every three, four or five years, as appropriate, which will define the principal objectives of the Corporation and outline its intended strategies. In the development of the corporate plan, I would expect that the Corporation will consult with the industry to ensure that the industry's needs and priorities are taken into account. Division 2 of Part VA of the Bill provides that the Corporation will be required to develop for each successive period of one year an operational plan setting out the particulars of the strategies to be pursued by the Corporation over that period in giving effect to the corporate plan. Both the corporate plans and annual operational plans are to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for agreement. In this way the accountability arrangements focus on the strategies and longer term performance of the Corporation and free it from the need for constant reference to the Minister for detailed approval of each major activity. While key parts of the Corporation's corporate plans may be made widely known to the industry, the Corporation may wish to keep certain elements confidential for commercial reasons. The Bill also brings into place a number of general reforms designed to provide the responsibility and authority necessary for the Corporation to perform its commercial tasks but within a properly accountable framework. Of significance are the new audit arrangements covered in clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill. Since the Corporation will now be required to convene an annual meeting of representatives of the industry and submit its annual report to those representatives, it is appropriate that it be able to give effect to a preference for a company auditor to audit its financial statements should it so wish. If the Corporation seeks to use a commercial auditor, the Minister for Primary Industry will be responsible for the appointment of the auditor, subject to the Auditor-General's agreement that the auditor is suitable and the agreement of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. On top of these safeguards, the Government will amend the Audit Act 1901 to enable the Auditor-General to set audit standards, to have access to the working papers and reports of the commercial auditor and to comment on the results of any such audits to the Minister and to Parliament. In addition, the Auditor-General will retain a discretionary power to audit the Corporation and report to the Minister and Parliament. This would not involve the certification of the Corporation's accounts if a commercial auditor had been used. The Corporation will continue to be funded by a levy paid by winemakers on products used in winemaking, that is, fresh and dried grapes and grape juice. The basis of the levy will remain unchanged in that all wineries using the fresh grape equivalent of 20 tonnes or more per annum of grapes and/or juice will be required to pay levy. However, the rate of levy is to be varied and a maximum is to apply to the total amount of levy payable by a single levy payer. Spreading the funding of the Corporation more evenly across levy payers puts a greater share of the funding burden upon those who wish it to continue. The operative rate of levy and maximum payment within the respective maxima will be set by regulation. Initially, an operative rate of $3 per tonne levy and a maximum payment by any levy payer of $10,000 will apply. After allowance is made for those amounts previously provided by the Corporation for research, which will now be funded by a separate levy component, the new operative levy will generate around the same level of funding for the Corporation as before, that is, about $500,000 in a normal year. However, for a leaner operation and with the fee for service approach this amount of funding should be adequate at least initially. The first collections of the composite levy to fund the Corporation and wine research will not be made until 1987-88. Accordingly, the Bill includes transitional provisions for levy imposed under current arrangements to be applied in appropriate proportions for these purposes in 1986-87. Restructuring the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation will involve no costs to the Commonwealth. Administrative savings could be expected associated with the Corporation having greater autonomy in its day to day affairs. These are difficult times for the rural sector. The continuation and reorganisation of the Corporation is part of a total package of measures designed to benefit the industry over the years ahead. I commend the Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on grapes and grape juice delivered to wineries and to other processing establishments, the proceeds of which will be used to finance research on wine grapes and other processed grapes. Administrative and organisational arrangements for the scheme, including establishment of a trust fund and research council, will be in accordance with the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Specifically excluded from the scheme are those dried grapes in respect of which levy is payable under the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971. At present most grape research is carried out by State departments responsible for agriculture and by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Apart from activity associated with the dried vine fruits industry, which has in place well established arrangements, funding is ad hoc and research tends to be fragmented. The decision to establish a statutory research scheme for grapes and thus place funding on a secure long term basis followed a request by the Wine Grape Growers Council of Australia, detailed consultation with the industry and widespread support from the industry, including from winemakers involved in grape production. The levy will be imposed on fresh grapes, dried grapes, and grape juice delivered to a winery or other establishment processing 20 tonnes or more of fresh grapes, or an equivalent amount of dried grapes or grape juice. The levy will apply from 1 July 1986, the beginning of the levy year as defined, and the grower of the leviable goods will be liable for payment of the levy. Grapes grown by a processor for processing in his or her own processing establishment will also be leviable. Levy will not be payable on grapes delivered to processors who use the equivalent of less than 20 tonnes of fresh grapes per year. It is estimated that only about 1,000 tonnes of grapes, or 0.2 per cent of an average vintage, will fall into this exempt category and the collection of such levy would not be cost effective. Levy is not payable on juice crushed from grapes which are leviable. The Bill provides for a maximum rate of levy of the equivalent of 50c per tonne for fresh grapes. This allows flexibility to increase the operative rate if industry so wishes. Operative rates of levy are to be set by regulations following consideration of recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industry by relevant industry organisations. After thorough consultation the industry agreed that an initial operative rate of 30c per tonne should apply. This is to commence on 1 July 1986 and will raise around $150,000 annually on a normal vintage. Some time will be needed to build up reserves and develop a research program. Therefore expenditure from the fund and the matching contribution from the Commonwealth are likely to be less in the first year than in future years. In 1987-88 Commonwealth government funds of the order of $100,000 only may be involved. A Grape and Wine Research Council will be established under the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 to administer the Grape Research Fund and wine research funding arrangements which are the subject of a separate Bill. The Council will comprise an independent chairperson and a government member to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry plus seven suitably qualified persons selected by a selection committee. The selection committee will consist of the core group appointed for all rural industry research councils plus three members nominated by relevant industry organisations. A co-ordinated research program operating within a secure funding environment clearly will contribute to the development of a more efficient grape and wine sector better able to meet competition from other wine producing countries. The need for such a scheme was recognised in the April 1985 report of the inquiry into the grape and wine industries and through its commitment to matching funding the Government is prepared to play its part in working toward ensuring the future well-being of the grape industry. It thus gives me a deal of satisfaction to bring this legislation before Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for collecting the levy imposed by the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986. This Bill should be read as one with the Grape Research Levy Bill 1986, and will commence on the same date as that Bill. To facilitate collection of the levy, clause 6 of this Bill provides for the levy to be paid by the processor on behalf of the grower and for the levy to be recovered from the grower. Levy imposed on leviable goods delivered during a July-June year is due and payable on 30 September in the following year. The Bill also outlines penalties for non-payment of levy and in relation to the requirement to submit returns. It includes standard provisions concerning the powers of authorised persons and access to premises relevant to the purpose of effective collection of levy. I commend the Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to revise the levy arrangements for funding the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation and to impose a specific levy on winemakers to provide an industry contribution for financing wine research. Proceeds from the current wine grapes levy are used to finance the activities of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, which in turn provides an annual industry contribution for funding research conducted by the Australian Wine Research Institute. Over recent years this industry contribution for funding research has been matched by the Commonwealth on an ad hoc basis. Amendments to the Wine Grapes Levy Act proposed in this Bill will provide for the levy to comprise two separate components. A marketing amount will continue to finance the activities of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, the operation of which is being reformed as provided for in the accompanying Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill. The research amount of the levy will provide the industry contribution for wine research, the funding of which will be placed on a more secure long term basis under the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. The levy will continue to be payable on fresh and dried grapes and grape juice used in winemaking. The Bill provides for a maximum rate of $5 per tonne for the marketing amount of the levy and a maximum rate of $3 per tonne for the research amount. It also provides for the total amount of marketing levy payable by any single levy payer in any year not to exceed a ceiling of $20,000. Operative rates will be fixed by regulation. Initially, the marketing amount and the research amount of the levy will be $3 per tonne and $1.30 per tonne respectively and the operative ceiling on marketing levy payable will be $10,000. The operative rates of levy and ceiling on marketing levy payable will not be increased without full consultation with winemaker organisations and a reasonable degree of industry support. The principal centre for the conduct of wine research in Australia is the Australian Wine Research Institute and its funding has been based on an ad hoc arrangement outside the normal statutory rural industry research funding arrangements. The Government fully supports the wine industry's objective of placing funding of the Institute on a secure long term basis so that it can better address the research needs of the industry. A secure funding environment for wine research will be achieved by prescribing the research amount of the wine grapes levy as a levy for the purposes of the Rural Industries Research Act and establishing pursuant to that Act arrangements for administering wine and grape research funding. Separate Bills within this package of legislation provide for grape industry research funding arrangements. A grape and wine research trust fund will be established with separate accounts to receive the proceeds of the research component of the wine grapes levy and the grape research levy. The Government is prepared to match expenditure of industry money from the fund up to a maximum level of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production of the wine and the grape industries. Should industry so wish, and subject to normal Budget considerations, this level could be achieved over a period of five years. A single Grape and Wine Research Council will be established to administer the distribution of funds for both wine and grape research. This is being done with industry support to provide administrative savings and to facilitate co-ordination of research in each of these sectors where appropriate projects are involved. In addition to an independent chairperson and a government member appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry, the Research Council will compromise seven members with appropriate qualifications. These members will be selected by a selection committee comprising the core group, which I have appointed for all rural industry research councils, plus three other members nominated by relevant winemaker and grapegrower organisations. Each component of the levy will be collected under the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 which provides for payment in two instalments at the end of September and the end of March in the financial year following that in which liability for levy is incurred. As the amending legislation will become effective on 1 July 1986, the first levy collections will not be made until 1987-88. It is estimated that in that year the cost to the Commonwealth by way of matching contribution to the wine account of the research trust fund will be about $660,000. It will be necessary to provide for on-going matching financing of the Australian Wine Research Institute during 1986-87 as current ad hoc arrangements terminate at 30 June this year. Accordingly, provision has been made in the related Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Amendment Bill for an appropriate proportion of the existing wine grape levy imposed in 1985-86 but which will not be payable until 1986-87, to be deemed to be a research levy for the purpose of the Rural Industries Research Act. This will enable these funds to be paid into the trust fund and to be matched by the Commonwealth when expended from that fund. Wine industry representatives have made it clear that the primary purpose of the new funding arrangements should be to secure the financial future of the Australian Wine Research Institute. Accordingly, it is intended that the bulk of the wine research levy proceeds be allocated by the Grape and Wine Research Council to meeting the Institute's research funding needs. At the same time, to the extent that availability of funds permits, other wine research projects could be considered for support from the fund. In addition to the on-going cost to the Commonwealth of matching expenditure of wine research levy proceeds, there will be a one-off cost to my Department associated with changes which will be necessary to ensure efficient collection of the marketing amount of the modified wine grapes levy. This is estimated in the order of $20,000. The measures proposed in this Bill will provide the basis for funding the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation in a way that address the demands and concerns of industry and will create a stable long term funding environment for wine research which will help the industry more fully to realise its potential. I commend the Bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Wine Research Act 1955 and provide for the disbursement of the moneys standing to the credit of the wine research trust fund established under that Act. The associated Bills within this package will bring the funding and administration of wine research within the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Act and will establish, for the first time, grape research arrangements consistent with that Act. A new grape and wine research trust fund will be set up for this purpose. A capital sum of $800,000 stands to the credit of the wine research trust fund. Interest on this amount has been paid in recent years to the Australian Wine Research Institute as a component of a Commonwealth contribution to match industry funding of the Institute. An extensive history attaches to the origins of the capital sum. Originally it was derived from the proceeds of an excise duty on spirit used in the fortification of wine. The duty was paid into a wine export encouragement account and used to finance a bounty on wine exported. In 1947 the bounty was discontinued and there remained a surplus in the encouragement account of some $2.2m. Under the Wine Export Bounty Act of 1947, about $1.2m was transferred to Consolidated Revenue and the balance of $1m was placed in the wine industry assistance account. Under this Act moneys in the trust fund could be expended at any time within 10 years for assisting the winemaking industry. Following a subsequent Tariff Board recommendation, a government-industry investigation was conducted into extension of research in the wine industry. This led to the establishment of the Australian Wine Research Institute and the transfer, under the Wine Research Act 1955, of funds in the wine industry assistance account to the wine research trust fund established under the 1955 Act. A sum of $200,000 was allocated to the Institute for capital expenditure leaving the present capital sum of $800,000 in the fund. The Commonwealth has contributed to the financing of wine research conducted at the Wine Research Institute since its inception in 1955. A five-year funding plan commenced in 1978-79 and since 1979-80 the Commonwealth has fully matched contributions provided by grants from the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation which itself is funded through a levy paid by wine makers on products used in winemaking. The five-year plan ended in 1982-83 and since then matching Commonwealth funding has been provided by the Government on an annual basis. From 1 July 1986 onwards matching Commonwealth funding for wine research at the Institute will be provided in accordance with the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Clause 4 of this Bill provides for an amount of $300,000 to be paid out of the existing wine research trust fund to the proposed grape and wine research trust fund for the purpose of grape research. It also provides for the balance of the moneys in the fund, including any interest, to be paid to the Australian Wine Research Institute. This apportionment between wine and grape research is approximately proportional to the annual gross values of production for wine and wine grapes respectively. The amount of $300,000, which will not be matched by the Commonwealth, will be equivalent to about one year's matched funding for grape research at a levy rate of 30c per tonne, the initial operative rate to apply for grape research. The direct payment of funds to the Australian Wine Research Institute should help the Institute to meet certain capital and maintenance expenses not eligible to be met by grants from the proposed grape and wine research trust fund. This will constitute a one-off Budget outlay. The $300,000 paid into the grape and wine research trust fund will be a transfer within the public accounts system. Clause 5 of this Bill provides for the repeal of the Wine Research Act 1955 on a day to be fixed by proclamation after the last payment is made from the wine research trust fund. The disbursement of funds to both winemakers and grapegrowers as proposed is equitable and will help to establish research under the new arrangements on a firm footing. I commend this Bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will ensure that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act does not apply to the mere transfer of a dominant position in a market from one person to another, commonly known as `bare transfers of monopoly power'. This Bill is virtually identical to provisions contained in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 which was passed by this House in November 1985. The Government is bringing forward these measures as a separate Bill having regard to views expressed in the Senate about the Bill in its earlier form and the particular attention which has been focussed on these provisions. Until the last few weeks, this provision, both before it was embodied in a Bill and afterwards, attracted no criticism and was widely supported to overcome an apparent anomaly in the existing application of section 50. The Bill received the endorsement of virtually the majority of the Senate, but because it encompassed other provisions and the Liberal Party of Australia indicated it was going to vote against it, which would virtually nullify the intention of section 50 and certainly nullify the will of the Parliament, the Government has been obliged to bring it in in separate form. This anomaly arose when the original merger test was changed in 1977 to the present test of acquisition of market dominance. Prior to 1977, the Act did not affect bare transfers of monopoly power, and there was no public discussion at the time the Act was amended in 1977 to suggest that it should cover such situations. However, a decision by a single judge of the Federal Court held that the section did extend to bare transfers. The Act was not intended to, and should not, interfere with bare transfers of monopoly power, because it is a competition statute; bare transfers of monopoly power are, by their very nature, neutral in competitive terms. In other words, the change in ownership of an existing dominant firm, with nothing more, will normally have no effect on competition. The practical difficulties arising from this anomaly were demonstrated in the acquisition in 1982 of the Swan Brewery Co. Ltd, a dominant firm in the Western Australian market, by Bond Corporation Pty Ltd. At that time the Trade Practices Commission decided not to take action against Bond Corporation, notwithstanding the apparent breach of section 50, because the Commission felt, as a competition authority, the acquisition was at worst competition neutral. The difficulties experienced by the Commission were exacerbated because, whilst Bond applied for authorisation of the acquisition, the Commission could find no public benefit to enable it to grant authorisation. This was because the authorisation test for mergers is predicated on mergers having an effect on competition, and is therefore inappropriate for bare transfers of monopoly power. In any bare transfer situation it is often difficult to establish a net public benefit. Bare transfers are normally neutral in this area. Thus whilst the Commission did not authorise the Bond/Swan merger, it also decided not to act against it. It is clearly unsatisfactory that this situation should continue and to this end this Bill recognises the reality that bare transfers of monopoly power are not appropriate to be dealt with by the competition authority under the Trade Practices Act. This whole issue has been brought to a head by the recent offer by Bell Resources Ltd for shares in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. There has been much confusion about what the Trade Practices Act does in this particular case, and it is appropriate that I give some explanation here. Whether the Bell offer, if successful, would amount to an acquisition by Bell of dominance in a market is a matter which only the court can determine. If it were held to be so, Bell would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act once the acquisition occurred, and it may be possible for the Trade Practices Commission to obtain an injunction to prevent such a breach of the Act taking place. Indeed, the Trade Practices Commission instituted proceedings on 26 February last seeking such an order and seeking interim restraining orders until the will of the Parliament is known; in the event the court required Bell to give the Commission two days notice of the issuing offer documents, which would enable the Commission to reassess its position at that time whether it wished to pursue an application for injunction. In any such proceedings, there is no inquiry into the public benefits or detriments of the Bell bid. The only question to be decided by the court is whether the bid, if successful, would result in the acquisition of dominance of a market by Bell, and thereby breach section 50 and, if so, whether on the balance of convenience the court should grant an injunction restraining Bell from continuing with its offer. The only way that an inquiry into the public benefits of this offer could be undertaken by the Trade Practices Commission is if Bell chose to apply for authorisation of its acquisition. This it has not done. Nor is there any guarantee that it would do so, even if the Commission pursued its injunction proceedings; it is a matter entirely for Bell to decide. Such an investigation by the Commission cannot be initiated by the Government either. Therefore, if the Act continues to apply to bare transfers of monopoly power, that would not in any way guarantee that such transfers will be the subject of inquiry on public benefit grounds by the Trade Practices Commission or anyone else. On the contrary, the only result would be the very undesirable one that the Trade Practices Act would unintentionally make existing monopolies effectively takeover-proof because such takeovers would be prohibited by section 50, and the authorisation test would be virtually impossible to satisfy. The provisions in this Bill were first mooted quite some time ago and were embodied in a Bill, and passed by this House, in November last year, well before the Bell bid was made. The amendment will apply to any acquisition which takes place after the commencement of the legislation. Any acquisition which takes place before that date will stand to be considered under the present law. It could be argued that not to proceed with this amendment would in reality be changing the rules which could reasonably have been anticipated to apply by now. I commend the Bill to the House and I produce an explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is to strengthen and improve the working of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in significant respects. It provides for the amendment of key provisions directed at restrictive trade practices in order to increase their effectiveness. It includes important new provisions to extend the protection afforded to consumers by the Act. The Bill also clarifies the intended meaning of a number of provisions and effects other changes for which experience with the legislation has shown a need. This Bill supersedes the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 which will be withdrawn from the Senate. It differs from the earlier Bill principally in that proposed sub-section 50 (2c), relating to what are commonly called bare transfers of monopoly power, has been deleted. It has become apparent that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill was likely to have been rejected by the Senate, notwithstanding that the majority of senators support virtually the whole Bill, because the Bill contained sub-section 50 (2c). The Government is determined that the major reforms and improvements in this Bill should not be shelved or delayed as a bargaining chip in relation to the quite different question of government action concerning the current bid by Bell Resources Ltd for shares in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The Government will not abandon consumers and reputable, competitive businesses who need now the protection and assistance which this Bill provides. The Trade Practices Act is a most important piece of legislation for the regulation of business practices in Australia. It is now some nine years since the Act was last comprehensively reviewed and it is time to address a number of problems which have arisen. The Government has demonstrated its sound economic management and its commitment to restoring the efficiency and vitality of Australian industry, with consequent benefits in increased employment opportunities and greater availability of reasonably priced commodities. The Trade Practices Act plays an important role in ensuring that the maximum benefits are obtained through an efficient allocation of our national resources, as well as protecting the interests of the consuming public and reputable businesses. The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively and appropriately achieving its dual aims of promoting efficiency through competition, and thereby ensuring goods are provided to the consumer at the cheapest price, and providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders. This Bill together with its companion Bill, the Trade Practices (Transfer of Market Dominance) Amendment Bill, represent the outcome of a major review of both the competition and consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act which was commenced immediately this Government came to office. The review, which was undertaken without preconceived notions or entrenched attitudes, led to the issuing in February 1984 of a Green Paper entitled `The Trade Practices Act: Proposals for Change'. The shipping provisions in Part X of the Act, administered by my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), are the subject of a separate review and are not dealt with in this Bill. That review has resulted in the recent release of the Liner Shipping Report. The introduction to the Green Paper indicated that it was intended to be a catalyst for public discussion and debate about the Trade Practices Act. The Green Paper succeeded in fostering debate, and 120 submissions were received from a wide range of groups including large and small business groups, representatives of other special interest groups, trade unions, consumer organisations, academics and other individuals. The original proposals were substantially reviewed in the light of these comments. Further changes were made following consultations earlier this year with key interest groups including large and small business, consumers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The process of consultation was extensive and proved valuable. As a result of that process, a number of the provisions of the Bill differ in significant respects from the proposals which were put forward in the Green Paper. The Bill also contains some provisions, not foreshadowed in the Green Paper, to deal with specific problems that have come to light since that paper was published. Proposals for recall of unsafe products were canvassed in a White Paper entitled `Recall of Unsafe Products` issued for public comment by the Office of Consumer Affairs in my Department in June 1985. The paper was the culmination of discussion over some years with industry and consumer groups on the options for an effective product recall system. The proposals in the Bill have been developed in the light of that process of consultation and of comments received on the White Paper. As indicated in the Australian Labor Party platform, this Government is committed to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. The Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers is actively pursuing this issue, and has created a special working party of officials. Together with the Green Paper, the Government released a list of amendments to the Act sought by the State and Territory governments to facilitate the achievement of uniformity by making the Act a suitable basis for mirror legislation elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Public comment was invited and extensive consultation with the State and Territory governments has taken place. Some of the amendments to Division 1 of Part V have been formulated specifically to make Division 1 a more suitable basis for mirror legislation. Several States have now indicated their willingness to enact legislation mirroring the majority of Division 1 of Part V and related provisions in Part VI of the Act as proposed to be amended. I cannot overemphasise the importance of achieving uniform legislation in the consumer protection areas. Differences and conflicts between legislative provisions in force in the various jurisdictions can pose real problems for businesses and cause confusion on the part of consumers. By promoting uniform consumer protection legislation throughout the Commonwealth, it is expected that the costs of compliance for business, and ultimately the community, will be reduced. The Government will be actively encouraging those States which have not yet undertaken to enact mirror legislation to do so, and will be seeking to ensure that the uniformity is maintained in the future. Once the so-called mirror fair trading legislation is enacted, we will turn our attention to other areas of consumer protection law and will seek to promote uniformity in those areas also. The question of uniformity is not a major problem in relation to the competition provisions in Part IV of the Act since the States have not generally legislated in this area. The Government, in its approach to business regulation, is committed to ensuring that unnecessary existing regulation is wound back, and adequate justification is put forward for new regulation. The Trade Practices Act lays down rules designed to preserve an environment in which the forces of competition can be effective and, at the same time, to protect consumers and reputable businesses from practices which are unfair. Beyond that, the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses. Its aim is to enable businesses to make their own decisions in a free but fair market. Anti-competitive private regulation of business can be just as restrictive as, or even more inhibiting than, government regulation without being based on the same broad concern with public interest. In improving the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act, we will ensure that anti-competitive private regulation of business is kept to a minimum, so that free and fair competition becomes the prime regulator for business. Content of Bill The more important features of the Bill, which I will now outline, represent significant advances in restrictive trade practice and consumer protection law. Mr Deputy Speaker, from here, the speech is the same as that which was delivered at the time of the introduction of the other Bill on 9 October last year, but it has to be read into Hansard. Definition of `consumer' The definition of `consumer' in section 4b determines the types of transactions to which the conditions and warranties contained in Division 2 of Part V apply. The current definition, which involves a monetary limit of $15,000 on some transactions, was set in 1977. The real value of that monetary limit has been significantly eroded since that time. It is proposed to increase the monetary limit to $40,000 to restore the protection given by the Act to consumer and small business purchasers. Also, the Government sees a need to provide protection for truck owner-operators whose business is directly affected by the dependability of their vehicles. After consideration of the recommendation of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-the May report-section 4b is to be amended to provide to purchasers of commercial road vehicles the protection given to consumers under Division 2 of Part V of the Act. Misuse of Market Power A competitive economy requires an appropriate mix of efficient businesses, both large and small. Whilst large enterprises may frequently have advantages of economies of scale, there are many occasions when large size does not of itself mean greater efficiency. However, a large enterprise may be able to exercise enormous market power, either as buyer or seller, to the detriment of its competitors and the competitive process. Accordingly an effective provision controlling misuse of market power is most important to ensure that small businesses are given a measure of protection from the predatory actions of powerful competitors. Unfortunately, section 46 as presently drafted has proved of quite limited effectiveness in achieving that result, principally because the section applies only to monopolists or those with overwhelming market dominance. Even in those cases, it has been extremely difficult for a plaintiff to establish the requisite predatory purpose on the part of the defendant corporation. The amendments proposed in clause 17 address these two problems and are designed to make section 46 much more effective. The test for the application of the section is to be reduced from that of a corporation being in a position substantially to control a market to a test of whether a corporation has a substantial degree of market power. As well as monopolists, section 46 will now apply to major participants in an oligopolistic market and in some cases, to a leading firm in a less concentrated market. The amendment will also make it clear that the court can infer the requisite predatory purpose from the conduct of the corporation or from the surrounding circumstances. Section 46 in its proposed form, which will be described as misuse of market power rather than monopolisation, is not aimed at size or at competitive behaviour as such of strong businesses. What is being aimed at is the misuse by a business of its market power. Examples of misuse of market power may include in certain circumstances, predatory pricing or refusal to supply. Price Discrimination I should mention that the Bill does not propose amendments to section 49, which deals with price discrimination. The Government has concluded that amendments of the kind which were canvassed in the Green Paper could have unintended and undesirable effects in particular leading to price rigidity. However, predatory price discrimination can be merely one manifestation of misuse of market power. The strengthening of section 46, and its more effective application to powerful buyers, will extend the potential application of that provision to predatory price discrimination. Mergers There has been much public debate recently about the level of merger activity in the Australian economy and the extent to which it should be regulated. Whilst the level of the debate has intensified recently following merger activity in the retail sector and in other markets, the public discussion was largely initiated by proposals in the Green Paper relating to section 50. Section 50 prohibits mergers which will result in a corporation being able to control or dominate a market, except where prior authorisation is obtained, on public benefit grounds, from the Trade Practices Commission. The Bill will close several loopholes which have come to light in section 50 in the last few years. The relevant provisions are directed to joint venture acquisitions and acquisitions by natural persons. Clause 19 inserts a new section 50A to deal with offshore mergers which affect a market in Australia. The Government is firmly committed to the encouragement of efficient Australian industry and to increasing our competitiveness on world markets. It has been decided that the existing `dominance' test in section 50 should remain essentially unchanged. The coverage of section 50 will not be extended beyond those mergers which result in undue concentration in a market. The competitive conduct of firms which increase their market power as a result of other mergers will be subject to scrutiny under section 46 as proposed to be amended. At present the Act provides an opportunity for merger participants to seek authorisation from the Trade Practices Commission on public benefit grounds. Some business groups have claimed that the existing authorisation procedures are not adequate for dealing with industry restructuring. While the Government does not accept this view, this has resulted in reluctance to approach the Commission to ascertain its views on possible authorisation. The Commission has, however, made it clear that it regards desirable industry restructuring as a public benefit and has been prepared to authorise mergers for that purpose. In recognition of the reluctance and time constraints in merger cases, the Bill contains provisions designed to speed up considerably the authorisation process. In addition, the Bill widens the scope of directions which the Minister may give to the Commission pursuant to section 29. This will provide greater flexibility in relation to directions which can be given to the Commission in respect of particular issues to be taken into account or bodies to be consulted in authorisation cases. In this respect I am considering directing the Commission to consult the Industries Assistance Commission in such matters. Other Changes in Competition Provisions The Bill contains a number of other provisions which are of significance in relation to Part IV. By clause 51, the divestiture remedy in section 81 is being made more effective, particularly where the parties to the merger have conspired to breach section 50. To ensure Australia's international relations are not adversely affected, private proceedings which rely on the extraterritorial operation of the Act will require the Minister's consent. Provisions relating to the disclosure of financial interests by members of the Commission and the Tribunal are being brought into line with current practice. Also, it will now be made clear that the Court can grant consent injunctions and consent divestiture orders, and the Tribunal will be able to make consent determinations, without the need to have a full hearing of the matter. Prohibition Against Unconscionable Conduct The Green Paper proposed a prohibition on unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to a contract or proposed contract. Following consultation with business, industry and consumer groups, the scope of this amendment has been refined and the proposed section 52a will now prohibit, on a civil basis, unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to consumer-type transactions. Where a contravention is proved, remedies under section 87 will be available, and the Trade Practices Commission will enforce the section by seeking injunctions where appropriate. The section is directed at conduct which, while it may not be misleading or deceptive, is nevertheless clearly unfair or unreasonable. For example, a corporation which attempted to take advantage of a buyer's obvious lack of understanding of a transaction might fall foul of this section. The new provisions will supplement existing provisions of Part V and strengthen the protection afforded to consumers against unscrupulous trading practices. Recall of Unsafe Products The Act already contains provisions enabling bans to be placed on the supply of unsafe products. However, these provisions have no application to unsafe products supplied before a banning order is issued. There are at present no powers available to deal with the problem of unsafe products which have already reached the hands of consumers. The Government recognises that many industries have established voluntary procedures for the recall of unsafe products in the market-place, and it commends this responsible approach. However, to provide an adequate mechanism for remedial action across the range of potentially unsafe products, the Government considers it necessary to provide mandatory recall powers which can be used when necessary. Where no voluntary procedures exist, or the procedures are inadequate, these powers will be able to be exercised to ensure unsafe products are recalled from circulation or other remedial action is taken. Clause 35 proposes the inclusion in the Act of a new Division 1a in Part V. The new provisions, dealing with product safety and product information, represent a most important development in measures for the protection of consumers. The Division incorporates, with some amendments, the existing sections of the Act dealing with product safety and product information standards. It also includes new powers dealing with the mandatory recall of unsafe goods supplied after 1 July 1986 and notices to warn the public of goods that are under investigation. I stress that the provisions for mandatory recall are designed to provide reserve powers which will be available for use where the safety of the public is threatened and the situation cannot be handled adequately by voluntary recall schemes or other means. In all cases, primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of consumer goods remains with manufacturers and importers. The Attorney-General will be relying on advice from his colleagues the Minister for Transport in relation to motor vehicles, and the Minister for Health in relation to pharmaceuticals, therapeutic goods and foodstuffs, who would undertake the appropriate consultative procedures within their areas of responsibility. Further, when the Government proposes to issue a mandatory recall order or banning order, there will ordinarily be an opportunity for suppliers of goods affected by the proposed order to seek a conference before the Trade Practices Commission before the order can be issued. In circumstances where there is an imminent risk of illness or serious injury the Attorney-General will be able to make an order without delay. In those cases which involve a declaration that the goods are unsafe, there will be an opportunity for a conference after the event to review the declaration. The review procedures will provide opportunity for full canvassing and testing of the issues consistent with quick action when necessary to protect the safety of the public. Commission Action on Behalf of Consumers Clause 55 provides for the amendment of section 87 to enable the Trade Practices Commission to obtain redress on behalf of particular named persons who have suffered loss or damage because of the conduct of a corporation or person in breach of the consumer protection provisions in Division 1 or 1a of Part V. One of the main obstacles preventing consumers from enforcing their rights under the Act is the high cost of litigation. By allowing the Commission to seek compensation on behalf of particular consumers in certain circumstances, consumers will more easily gain redress. The amendment will be particularly useful where the Commission takes enforcement action in situations such as where a large number of consumers have each been defrauded of relatively small amounts, or where a small group of consumers have lost their savings as a result of a fraudulent representation. This kind of proceeding will be a representative action rather than a so-called `class action'. The question of remedies for aggrieved consumers will only arise once the Commission has established a contravention of Part V in a prosecution or a proceeding for an injunction. The aggrieved consumers must be identified in the application and must have consented in writing to the Commission acting on their behalf. The Court is not empowered to make awards of damages to a class of persons, but only to particular named persons. The amount of the loss suffered by each individual by reason of the contravention will have to be established. Other Amendments to Part V The Bill also contains other amendments to strengthen the operation of Part V, and their enforcement under Part VI. I draw attention to amendments dealing with misleading representations about employment opportunities, to provide greater protection for unemployed people looking for work; and, with fraudulent claims for payment for unsolicited advertising, to ensure that small businesses have adequate protection against such claims. Further details of the amendments are given in the explanatory memorandum. Financial Impact Statement Generally speaking, this Bill will have only a minor impact on Government expenditure. This Bill does not involve additional staff or resources for the Trade Practices Commission. The only direct impact on Government expenditure concerns the administration of the reserve mandatory recall powers. This will require five staff in the Office of Consumer Affairs, to monitor industry product recall systems and advise the Attorney-General on the need to exercise the reserve powers when those systems are not adequate to arrange testing of allegedly unsafe goods, and to conduct advertising to notify the public of unsafe goods. The full year cost is estimated at $250,000. I expect that this Bill will enhance the protection offered by the Act to consumers and will promote fair business practices and competition, to the ultimate benefit of the whole community. Further, if, as expected, several of the State governments enact legislation mirroring the majority of Division 1 of Part V of the Act and repealing State legislation thereby rendered unnecessary, I expect that the costs for business and industry of complying with Government regulation in the consumer protection area will be reduced. Conclusion This Bill contains many important features aimed at promoting fair business practices and competition to the benefit of business interests and the broader community alike. In pursuing these objectives, the Government is demonstrating again its commitment to strong, efficient and internationally competitive Australian industry and to a fair market-place. I commend the Bill to the House, and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.30) —When the debate was interrupted earlier, I was discussing certain matters relating to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has said that the Federal Government will not alter its policy prohibiting the export of Australian native birds. In a Press article he claimed that the Government would have to train staff so that it could station bird identification experts at international airports to prevent rare and endangered species which may be difficult to tell apart from common species from being taken out under cover. I disagreed with the Minister, saying that such staff should already be at airports. I questioned how much it would cost to educate someone to tell the difference between common birds, such as galahs and cockatoos, and some more exotic species. The Minister implied that there would be high export inspection charges. This would be nothing new as many rural Australians already languish under the high export inspection charges of this Government. The Coalition Waste Watch Committee will no doubt be looking at the Minister's Department. I am hopeful that we can reduce a lot of the wasteful expenditure there and that if the Minister insists upon imposing an export inspection charge on birds, should the policy change, the fee for that would be kept down as low as possible. When interrupted earlier I was raising the question of the morality of imposing export inspection charges. I was asking: What was wrong with a person who wants to export paying exorbitant export inspection charges? The Australian Labor Party, which has the shocking record of imposing high export inspection charges on rural producers, would have to say that there is nothing wrong with export inspection charges. On the other hand everyone on both sides of the House would have to agree that the imposition of export inspection charges on the export of non-endangered birds would be no more reprehensible than the charges already imposed. It is, therefore, difficult to see how the Minister can be serious in suggesting that the fact that a fee would be imposed on an exporter is a reason for refusing to permit the carefully regulated and humane export of non-endangered native birds. I think that most Australians have a genuine concern about the misuse by this Government of the external affairs power. The Commonwealth enters into certain international conventions and then comes into this place and uses those conventions as a means of subverting the Constitution. We of the National Party of Australia are 100 per cent opposed to the Labor Party's undermining of the Constitution which has served this nation so well. Other members have pointed out the cruelty of the illegal export trade in Australian birds and the manner in which so many of those birds arrive at their ultimate destination dead. We believe, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is the shadow Minister for Trade, pointed out, that there should be a change in the policy in this area. We believe that the Government should adopt the decision in the report I referred to earlier today, which pointed out to the people and to the Parliament that there should be a change in the policy in this area. I shall reiterate a couple of the points made by the shadow Minister when speaking on behalf of the Opposition, because I do not want there to be any confusion and because honourable members opposite like, at every available opportunity, to misrepresent what we say. The shadow Minister said that there should be a lifting of the ban on the commercial export of non-endangered native birds. That is the first point to note. We are not talking about endangered species; we are talking about non-endangered native birds. The shadow Minister stressed that there should be carefully regulated and humane export. He was not suggesting that there should be open slather. He pointed out that the Government sponsored study had agreed that there could be the development of a potentially substantial and economically important export industry. One does not have to be an expert in economics to know that Australia needs every boost to its export industry that it can possibly obtain. A carefully regulated and humane export industry would avoid much of the cruel trapping and shipping practices which occur when these birds are smuggled overseas. Many of these birds are common birds, birds which people want to have overseas, but in this country they are in plague proportions and cause in the rural industries of Australia an inestimable amount of damage to crops and so on. If we could export a lot of these birds we would be, in fact, helping the economy and also helping rural industries. The Government seems to have a firm, hard-shelled, ideological approach to this matter. It does not seem to have resort to any reasonable argument. It is ignoring the views of this study. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter in the future. As I mentioned earlier, we in the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia do not oppose this Bill. I would, however, like to stress again that the Minister should consider the very many points raised by the Opposition speakers, because they are constructive, they are useful, and they should be helpful in encouraging this Government to adopt a more appropriate policy. In conclusion, as time is short, it seems utterly crazy that people in this country are allowed to shoot and kill non-endangered species of Australian birds and yet it is illegal to export them. It would be very difficult for the Government to explain this complete lack of logic, this complete lack of humanity and this complete lack of common economic good sense to the people of Australia. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(5.37) —Today we are discussing the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986, which amends the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, which was introduced by the former Government. It is to its credit that this Bill exists today. Credit is also due to the Opposition at the time, the current Government, for its support of the debate in 1982. In the debate we have had so far we have almost had a repeat of the debate of 1982 in many respects, particularly the feelings of members of the House on this matter, the only difference being that the parties have changed sides in the House. That 1982 Act consolidated previous import and export controls of flora and fauna which were formerly under the Customs Act 1901. We saw in this House recently the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, which did the same things for other aspects of movable cultural heritage, and I would contend quite strongly that the flora and fauna we are talking about today are also very important parts of our cultural heritage. Unfortunately, too many of them have moved, and moved outside this country. The legislation extends the practicability and application of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, otherwise known by the acronym CITES. The amendments in the Bill arise as a result of looking at the progress and application of the original 1982 Act, which was put into force in 1984. Obviously, in the design of legislation there are occasions when fine tuning must occur to remedy unforeseen inadequacies or changed circumstances. As the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) outlined in his second reading speech, the amendments can be grouped into four main categories. They are to make controls over the export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade; to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have been proven, in practice, to be unnecessarily complex or generally unnecessary; to clarify and strengthen certain enforcement provisions, which I will speak a little more about towards the end of my speech; and to increase protection for those who provide information leading to proceedings under this Act. This Act is also being amended to allow more flexibility for private citizens who have to engage, for reasons of travel, in the bona fide importation of specimens acquired before their regulation under that Convention, especially people who have specimens which are part of their personal or household effects, gifts, in- heritances and so on. The basic intentions of the Act in general are to regulate the legitimate trade and movement in wildlife-flora and fauna-and, more importantly, I believe, to step up the fight against illegal trafficking in flora and fauna, be they Australian or exotic examples. There is obviously a need for legitimate trade and movement, but honourable members opposite have extended that legitimate trade and movement too far beyond the spirit of reason. There is obviously a need for limited study for scientific or education purposes, and for control through Customs and wildlife officers. There is obviously a need for specimens as biological control agents. Also, this matter reflects on many areas of Australia's relations. I refer to government authorised exchanges with other countries and their zoos. I will return to that subject later if I have the time to do so. The area of greatest concern to me is illegal trafficking in flora and fauna. Honourable members will be under no illusion that this is a very serious situation. Figures are very difficult to pin down, but the illegal trade in Australia has been put at about $40m per annum. That can be easily understood if one sees the price which some of these poor suffering animals, and indeed plants, bring in other countries. Our wildlife, of which we are very proud, is unique in the world. It is a constant source of attraction for visitors from overseas. It is an important part of our national identity. Wildlife is depicted on our coat of arms. It is a great joy to all Australians and visitors to Australia. Very importantly, it is an intrinsic part of our en- vironment and of an ecosystem that is often very finely balanced. Traffickers do not care for any of this. Hundreds of birds and other animals leave Australia illegally every week. Many of these are obviously species in abundance, but others are very seriously endangered. If a trafficker is going to take risks, the trafficker may as well make it worth his or her while. A dead rare bird or animal is, of course, of no more value than a dead common bird or animal, but a live one can be worth up to a hundred times that of a common species. It is really sad to reflect, when we see instances of this, that sometimes only one in ten animals packed away will eventually reach its destination, and from there who knows what happens to it? I think it is worth while to look at the techniques some of these despicable people employ to make their money. We have all seen pictures of suitcases crammed full of birds and animals, usually doped with valium, in plastic pipes. It sometimes takes them a couple of days to reach their destination. There have been instances of 20 galahs being packed in a suitcase. If about 50 per cent are viable, on arrival, they will probably bring about $30,000. One single black cockatoo would be worth about $30,000 in Europe or the United States. A Major Mitchell parrot would be worth about $50,000. Obviously, our airports, harbours and so on are points of egress and ingress for this illicit trade. Other animals are stuck into nylon stockings or cotton bags. They have even been found in spare car tyres, in car door panels, stuffed in little boxes. It is really quite horrific when these poor animals are dragged out after these people are caught. Unfortunately, when these people are caught they are given pretty light sentences as far as I am concerned. I draw the attention of the House to a couple of Press articles that have brought to the attention of the public in general showing how bird smugglers catch their prey. An article in the Age in June 1984 included an interview with a smuggler in north Queensland. The article states: `Birds don't like lavatory paper', the fauna smuggler says, taking a sip of beer in a crowded lounge of a Cairns hotel . . . `You can get up on to the Cape (York Peninsula), find a nice valley and check out the waterholes. Then you stick a lot of twigs into the mud and lace them with lavatory paper. Always use the stuff on special in Cairns, it's cheaper than Sorbent. `See, the birds don't know what the paper is and they won't come down for a drink. They're getting real thirsty after a day or so. But you've made a little waterhole for them so they start drinking there.' The birds are then caught in a lobster pot. That is the way they go. They do not stop there. That is one way of catching birds. An easier way to get a bird out of the country is to take it out in an egg. An article in the West Australian of September 1984 states: Illegal bird trappers have started to steal half-incubated eggs from nests in an effort to smuggle protected WA species to lucrative overseas markets. The article states that there has been an instance of 29 galah eggs, three long-billed corella eggs and two from a red-tailed black cockatoo all being taken from nests in a tree. The people were caught cutting down the tree, cutting down the habitat, just to get these eggs. These people stood to make $175,000 out of those eggs when they got them to the United States, if they were able to be raised as chicks. They were fined a mere $1,200 and ordered to pay costs. That is quite sick. They would have taken them out of the country stashed in their T-shirts so that they could get them through Customs. Many of our species are threatened not only by the taking of the eggs, but by the interference in the whole breeding pattern. Some of these birds do not breed every year or a couple of times a year. They might breed every two or three years. So we can see the impact that that would obviously have. Smugglers do not stop at birds. They go in for snakes as well. Customs officers have seized Australian reptiles concealed in cotton bags and in a whole manner of things. If I were a Customs officer, I certainly would not want to put my hand into someone's suitcase, thinking it contained a pair of trousers, to find that it happened to contain a venomous snake. Birds and snakes are not the only animals that come easily to mind. There are other animals as well, such as butterflies, fish, sea creatures, in some instances live coral, and, of course, our indigenous plants. There is often disagreement in this House on matters concerning the environment, but it is important to realise that such animals and plants are not purchased from the supermarket shelf. They are an intrinsic part of our environment. They are part of our ecosystem. Australia's ecosystem has a very fine balance, as we all know. People who come from the outback and from areas that are very dependent upon a fine balance of human beings, animals, the weather and so on will recognise that this fine balance is very easily disturbed. This occurs in the micro-ecosystems as well as the macro-ecosystem of Australia. I appreciate some of the points that were made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) on this side of the House and by many speakers on the other side regarding the export of animals, how that should be enhanced and how effective it would be in changing our balance of trade and so on. But what do they really hope to achieve as far as the animals are concerned? These are not sheep and cattle that are bred for domestic purposes. These are basically wild animals. What will we do with them? Will we stick them in cages in someone's living room in Brussels or Los Angeles? What is the whole idea of it? What are we really trying to achieve by the export of wild animals. These are not dogs or cats; these are wild animals and are part of Australia and its ecosystem. That environment-and those animals in that environment-are vital to the balance that we try to maintain. Obviously, there are distortions from time to time, but I do not think the simple fact of exporting animals will solve that problem. That is a rather simplistic approach and I hope that the Opposition does not persist with that rather simplistic line of solving that problem. We talk about the habitats of these animals. There is no use in the Opposition coming in here and making fine noises and decrying the situation where many of the animals suffer great trauma and often death in the illegal trafficking, if the Opposition continually refuses to support the original environments from which those plants and animals come. We have seen that attitude in issues such as woodchipping, the Daintree and other rainforests and developments such as uranium mining. We have to recognise also the role of the Aboriginal people. Their knowledge of the environment and the ecosystem generally is almost a genetic understanding, compared with ours. They have been here for countless thousands of years. We talk in terms of decades and a couple of hundred years. The Aborigines have lived with this land and the animals for so long and we should respect and try to learn from what those people have to offer in terms of management of this land. Another animal that is in the news from time to time, quite sadly, is the crocodiles. The simple solution for many people is to go out and blast away and kill them all and do whatever they like with the skins, but certainly eradicate them because they have killed animals and, on notable and recent sad occasions, they have attacked human beings. We have to realise that, as sad as that situation may seem, basically it is the crocodiles' environment and we need to be aware of that environment when we go there. The needless slaughter of those animals, whether it be for revenge or other forms of control, is a dangerous interruption of the food chain. We have to be more aware of the delicate balance, especially in those areas, and the role of crocodiles. As far as koalas are concerned, I am prepared to support limited well researched interchanges between governments, whether it be gifts to zoos or whatever. Koalas are very sensitive animals. This Government and previous governments have worked with State bodies as well as within their own Federal departments to learn more about koalas. People can learn more about those animals and the better control of their conditions by taking part in such exchanges. I urge the Government, while we are talking about koalas, if it is concerned about wildlife in general, as I believe it is, to consider the effect that the disease caused by chlamydia psittaci is having upon the koala population. I call upon the Government and the Opposition to make research into this disease, which is seriously affecting our koala population, a priority in animal welfare and animal research in the next Budget. In the few minutes remaining I pay special tribute to the many conservation groups that exist in the community. While it is fine for us to stand here and talk about what is happening-about people bringing wildlife in and taking it out of Australia-the fact is that without the conservation groups which are active in the community there would be much less available. Some people may agree with the conservation groups and some may not, but they perform a very important role in our community. I refer to the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Australians for Animals, Friends of the Earth and the many small local groups which exist in our communities, towns and regions. I pay particular attention to those people in the Friends of the Earth and the Wilderness Coalition in Diamond Valley, Heidelberg and Eltham in my electorate. Mr Cleeland —Hear, hear! Mr STAPLES —I know that my friend, the honourable member for McEwen, supports that as well. The other day I was at the Heidelberg Festival. A variety of groups were there, including the Scouts and others. I went into a tent of one of the groups-the Warringal Conservation Society. That Society has listed all the special local flora and fauna in that area. The flora and fauna may not be the most startling examples of Australian wildlife that one has ever seen, but they are important and it is important that we know exactly what is around us. It is easy to go around chopping down trees without knowing what value that tree has as a species and what habitat that tree provides for various animals in the area. The Warringal Conservation Society has done a tremendous job in bringing to the attention of the people of Heidelberg and surrounding areas the need for protection of the environment, for public education, for the creation of a register of assets and for a watch-dog on errant people who cut down trees with chainsaws or councils which bulldoze and knock down trees. There is a need for the protection of our environment and the species. The amendments to this Bill will lead to far less destruction of our wildlife and better controls in legitimate exports. The increased penalties mentioned are not sufficient when one considers the money people make out of illegal trafficking. A penalty of $5,000 is meaningless to those people who are earning big money, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. The trafficking is linked to organised crime and it should be treated in that way. The amendments clarify the powers of inspectors, and I support that proposal. I support the Minister and the shadow Minister and people on both sides of the House in supporting the general principles of this Bill, regardless of some of the more extreme suggestions that have been put forward. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. (Quorum formed) Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Order of the Day No. 3, General Business, being called on forthwith. Debate resumed from 21 May 1985, on motion by Mr Spender: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(6.00) —Privilege, as recognised by parliaments following the Westminster traditions, traces its history to the reign of William and Mary, beginning in 1396. Notwithstanding the general recognition of the privilege of the Parliament, the Crown and the House of Commons were not always agreed upon its limits. Against violation of the privilege under forms of law, the Commons evolved a safeguard which was given final expression in the Bill of Rights. This consisted of claiming superiority for the lex parliamenti over the common law and, for the high court of Parliament, independence of the courts in Westminster Hall. This recognition by law of the privilege of the freedom of speech received final statutory confirmation after the revolution of 1688-the so-called glorious revolution. This period of English history is seen as the time the Parliament exerted its authority over the Crown and the common law, and the Bill of Rights was the statutory vehicle which enshrined the sovereignty and independence of Parliament. By the ninth article of the Bill of Rights it was declared that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Parliament. Yet it should not be forgotten that the Bill of Rights and the privileges which flowed from it were not at the time seen to create rights as they are known today. The history of the mother of parliaments up to 1688 was one of conflict between the rights of the people to exert their authority, through the Parliament, over the Crown and the courts. Today, however, the rights attached to the notion of privilege are such that members of parliament, within these four walls, can escape the normal limitations of speech imposed on other Australians. The expression `cowards castle' is an apt description of the misuse of the privilege often seen in this place. I want to direct my attention to the double standards of the Opposition. The Bill of Rights of 1688 was established to create rights for the Parliament against the failure of the common law both to create and enforce those rights. The Bill we are debating today-the Parliament (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill-is in the same tradition. This Parliament is debating a parliamentary Bill of Rights introduced by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the Opposition. The Bill creates rights not just for the Parliament as a whole but for the individuals who collectively make up the Parliament. It asserts the supremacy of the Parliament over the common law. It creates the rights that individual Australians do not have. Unlike the Australian Bill of Rights introduced by the Government, this Bill is not a shield but a sword, and a very sharp sword. So the double standards become apparent. Whilst the rest of Australia is told by the Opposition to find their rights in the common law, if they can find such rights, members of the Opposition come into this House supporting privilege-their privilege. If the common law gives all the rights, all the protection, that the honourable member for North Sydney says it does-I refer honourable members to his speech on the Bill of Rights as reported in Hansard-this Bill is unnecessary. What strange logic members of the Opposition have. Let me make it clear at this point that I am not opposed to the notion of privilege as it applies to this place. I wonder, however, at the abuses it protects. It is common knowledge that the ordinary Australian is often ashamed of the behaviour of members of this place and the unbridled personal attacks that so often mar proceedings. For many years I was a councillor of the Shire of Diamond Valley. Councillors do not have privilege or protection in regard to the normal things they discuss in council chambers. They are subject to the same laws as every other Australian. They have no protection from action for defamation; no shield. One could argue that councillors should not be allowed the right to go within the four walls of their council chamber and use the privilege of that place to abuse the rights that flow from it. In all of my years as a councillor I did not find that I needed the protection of privilege. I found that I could operate effectively as a councillor without that shield. However, I am the first to concede that there is a big difference between our role in this place and the role of a municipal councillor. The point I make is that the privilege enjoyed is accepted by members as a right and not as a privilege. It can be abused in many ways. Media reports of the Parliament are also able to rely on the privilege of the House. A member may, on information supplied by the media, raise in this House matters otherwise not reportable, thereby circumnavigating an otherwise actionable report. One can question whether this should be allowed and whether a matter raised under privilege in this House should not be actionable outside its precincts. If ever there was an example of how the Parliament can be used as a star chamber, the use of illegally obtained tapes, now commonly known as the Age tapes, stands on its own. The shameful use of the privilege of this House and the unsubstantiated allegations made against decent and defenceless Australians are by themselves sufficient reason to call into question the limit which should be placed on this right now being debated. In many areas this House takes upon itself certain rights and privileges and we rely on those rights and privileges based on section 49 of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of 1688. But we never question in any serious way what sorts of proceedings we ourselves should use to stop members from abusing those rights. The Bill we are now looking at on any reasonable examination simply suggests that the only enforcement proceedings against abuse of that privilege are proceedings of the House itself. So we have the situation, as we have seen so recently in the past, in which a member can raise in this place totally unsubstantiated material, no doubt supplied by a media group, and use the privilege of the House to get that recorded so the media can then use it and not be subject to defamation laws or other attacks. Yet there are no investigatory procedures. There is no means by which an aggrieved person outside of this place can seek redress. I find that a very strange and sad situation. If there is one defect in this Bill, it is in that area. There should be some way in this Bill, some way within the procedures for the use of privilege, for people who feel offended by what they see as a misuse of that privilege to go outside this House and seek that redress. Let us face it, what is the use of coming to the House itself when whichever party is in government is in control of the numbers and can use those numbers to deny the person that right? I do not think that the history of this place over the years is such that individual rights have been protected by the political system. That is my principal concern. I believe that the rights of the individual outside this place are not protected by this Bill. I should congratulate the members of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege who prepared the report printed on 3 October 1984. There is probably no better collection of information about the history of privilege as it applies to this country and its potential role in the future. It is another great example of how our founding fathers back in the pre-1901 days thought that they could by the use of section 49 provide for privilege and simply say that, whatever the House of Commons was doing as at 1901, we would adopt it automatically and from that day on that would be the rule for privilege in this House. I find that a bit tragic. It would have been far better had we had a Bill of Rights as provided for in the American Constitution and if the role of privilege had been part of our overall Constitution. I would like to think that this Bill and the Australian Bill of Rights could be considered in this context as complementary legislation. While not agreeing entirely with the Bill of the honourable member for North Sydney, I compliment him on his effort. At least he is raising the matter by presenting the Bill. I certainly agree with most of it. I would like to see it go back to a joint committee so that some of the matters which I discussed and which worry me personally could be looked at further. On the whole, I recommend the overall thrust of the Bill and look forward to further discussions on it. Mr FIFE(Hume)(6.10) —In supporting the Parliament (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill, I am drawing on my many years of experience as a Federal and State parliamentarian. I do so with deep concern for the maintenance of Parliament's privileges and paramountcy and to strike a balance between the past and the present. Much has changed since Parliament's powers, privileges and immunities were established over 200 years ago in circumstances, of course, quite different from the present. We should make changes, not for the sake of change but to mirror, in our practices and our law, the needs of today's Parliament in a way that seems to us, and to the Australian people, to take account of the great changes in parliamentary and national life and to strike a wise and just balance between the claims of Parliament and the overriding consideration of Parliament's supremacy with other claims. Let us for a moment, as parliamentarians, reflect on the vast changes that have taken place since our privileges were established and, indeed, since Federation. Let us also reflect on the increasing scrutiny which the institution of parliament and we, as parliamentarians, are under. I stress again that I would never advocate or support reform for its own sake. However, in my view the case for reform is compelling. The reality is that if we are to change and improve our system, this Bill could very well be the only opportunity that many of us will have to do something during our parliamentary lifetimes. Such has been the record of attempts at reform of Parliament's privileges that the last attempt was made as long ago as the 1930s. I should now like to take up the three main items in the Bill: The abolition of defamatory contempts; the abolition of the power of the Houses to expel members; and the limited, and extremely mild, form of review capacity to be given to the High Court of Australia. Honour- able members will recall that it was the Oakes case that sparked the formation of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege on whose report the Bill of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is based. This matter was taken up the the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and ultimately formed the subject of report by the Committee. I venture to suggest to members of the House that the time is well overdue for us to abandon a privilege which, in effect, allows us-should we wish-to place fetters on criticisms of this House, its members, or its committees. As an institution, and as members, we are in my view uniquely well placed to deal with ill-founded or malicious attacks. No one would really suggest that there should be a muzzle on freedom to criticise members or the House. Nor would anyone really suggest that these days we would ever consider imposing penalties on any journalist or media outlet that did so, regardless of how intemperate the language employed. To those who would suggest that it is possible that we could be placed under an attack of such force and organisation that it would undermine the institution of Parliament itself, I give two simple replies. First, let us concern ourselves with realities, not with fantasies. Secondly, if such an extraordinary unlikely set of circumstances arose, we retain the power, under the Constitution, to reinvest ourselves with whatever privileges we think necessary. Speaking from my own experience, and my knowledge of our parliamentary history, I would be content to rest my argument on the lack of need for this so-called protection, and its being completely out of keeping with the needs of Parliament. I point out that this privilege does not exist in the United States Congress and never has. Turning to the power of the Houses to expel, members will recall that this power has been exercised once only, and on that occasion by the House of Representatives. The year was 1920 and the member expelled was Mr Mahon. The Joint Select Committee was clearly of the view that Mr Mahon should not have been expelled. A very troubling feature of the Mahon case-aside from the peremptory way in which he was dealt with by the House-is that the motion to expel was carried on party lines. Honourable members will recall that the privileges which were established in the House of Commons, were established under a system bereft of a written constitution. Our position is quite different, and we have by our Constitution specifically provided for the disqualification of members. Recalling that it is fundamentally for the people to determine who would represent them in Parliament, that our Constitution has laid down specific rules for disqualification, that the Mahon case itself is the sole and a very troubling precedent, that one can never exclude the arbitrary and party use of the power to expel, that the full penal powers will remain in the House to discipline any member who requires discipline, it is my view that we should dispense with this power. Last, I turn to the limited form of review which is to be vested in the High Court. The first point to be made is that this right of review is to apply only when the decision of the House is to imprison someone for an offence against it. The effect of the Bill is that the particulars of the facts as found by the House, by virtue of which the House has found a person guilty and for which that person is to be imprisoned, should be stated in the resolution imposing punishment or imprisonment. Of course, the House cannot in fact be compelled to state these particulars but surely it should do so, as it would be quite wrong to imprison without knowing the precise basis upon which imprisonment was being imposed. Where imprisonment is to be imposed it would be open to the High Court to hear an application on the part of the imprisoned person and to declare that no breach of privilege in the strict sense is established by these particulars, such as an infringement of a member's right to freedom of speech and that a recognised category of contempt-that is one established by the practice of the House or of the Commons-has been made out. The Court could do no more than that and it would then be open to the House, where any declaration is made, to make its own decision as to what it should do. Effectively, this right would be a substitute for the writ of habeus corpus which is, to all intents and purposes, a dead letter when the House makes an order for commitment because the practice is to make the order in general terms and the courts have long decided that they will not look at the facts on which the order is based. I support this extremely limited power of review. In the end, the decision remains one for the House and the will of the House is paramount. Hence, the supremacy of the House is maintained while at the same time the citizen is given a right of review. This provision in the Bill would not have my support if it did not preserve the supremacy of the Parliament. Frankly, I think it is unlikely that we are ever going to face again the necessity of imprisonment in the vindication of our privileges. Honourable members will recall that there is only one instance when this course was adopted-the Browne and Fitzpatrick affair. All of the matters in the Bill are matters for individual members to consider. Some will support parts of the Bill and oppose other parts. Importantly, these matters are now being considered by Parliament. The members of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege are to be commended for the detail and time-consuming work undertaken, in particular, the honourable member for North Sydney for giving the House the opportunity, by way of a private member's Bill, to consider the question of reform the first time in approximately 50 years. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(6.21) —On 2 March 1986 Australia abolished any jurisdiction by the United Kingdom Parliament over our laws. It also abolished appeals to the Privy Council. This was in legislation agreed to by all the States and the Commonwealth and approved by the Queen of Australia in person. When the Queen signed the proclamation for the Australia Act in 1986, she observed that this ended outmoded links and reflected Australia's status as an independent and sovereign nation. With the passage of the Parliament (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill, I hope in the same month, we will establish for the first time the privileges of the Commonwealth Parliament. Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides: the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committee, at the establishment of the Commonwealth. Eighty-five years, two months and 18 days later, the powers and privileges of the Parliament have still not been declared by the Parliament. We are still bound by the privileges of the House of Commons as on 1 January 1901, the first day of the twentieth century, just three weeks before Queen Victoria died. In privileges the House of Commons has moved and is no longer bound by the precedents of 1901, but we are still frozen in the Victorian era. Our failure to act under section 49 has been in sharp contrast to section 48 of the Constitution, which provided that salaries for members should be set at #400 per year `until the Parliament otherwise provides'. Mr Young —We are just reducing them. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, the Parliament has provided otherwise repeatedly. It is true that section 49 of the Constitution has been modified somewhat by Standing Order 1 of the House of Representatives, which provides: In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sessional or other orders or practice of the House, resort shall be had to the practice of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in force for the time being, which shall be followed as far as it can be applied. I had the experience of serving on the Standing Committee of Privileges and then later serving on the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which was set up in the Thirty-first Parliament. When the Committee was set up and the Liberal Government was still in office, the honourable member for North Sydney, Mr John Spender, QC, became the chairman and Senator G. J. Evans was the Deputy Chairman. After the change of government in 1983, when the considerations of the Joint Select Committee were not yet completed, it continued its work with two changes in personnel and the final report came down in October 1984. There was just an outside chance that in those last frenzied moments of that Parliament it might have been considered so that when the new Parliament took its seat in early 1985 the Parliament would have declared itself. So far it has not happened. We now have the opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the report will be adopted. Much of the pressure for declaring this came because of concern about the Oakes case. When the Standing Committee of Privileges reported on a complaint made in the House of Representatives on 8 September 1981 about a printed reference in an article by Laurie Oakes, this was examined exhaustively. There was a general feeling on the Committee that the existing law of privilege was not adequate, that it broke down. A number of criticisms of the existing method of dealing with privileged reports were put in a dissenting report by the Hon. M. J. Duffy and myself which was printed in the proceedings. Several attempts were made to try to bring the law of privilege up to date. In 1908 a joint select committee on procedure in cases of privilege met under the chairmanship of Sir John Quick, who was a member of the House of Representatives for Bendigo, a distinguished constitutional lawyer and co-author of the famous text on the Commonwealth Constitution, Quick and Garran. The Quick Committee made fundamental criticisms of the law of privilege and recommended that, instead of members of the Parliament being judge in their own cause, complaints should be transferred to the High Court of Australia. No action was taken on this request until a draft Bill called the Offences Against the Parliament Bill was prepared in 1934 by the then Attorney-General, J. G. Latham, who was soon after translated to the High Court. However, no action was taken on the Quick report or the Latham Bill. Although there had been a number of criticisms of the existing law of privilege, it has taken a long time before we have got to this stage. Historically, the law of parliamentary privilege was aimed at protecting the institution of Parliament and its members from practices which prevented members of parliament from carrying out their duties without fear or favour, or which provided inducement of some kind which encouraged members to act in some particular way, or discouraged them from acting at all. Thus, the law of privilege covered intimidation, solicitation, molestation and bribery and, of course, conferred freedom from suit for actions performed and words spoken in the Parliament. The law of privilege, certainly as it was in Britain on 1 January 1901, has been static for nearly three centuries while the world of politics has changed dramatically. In 1704, May reports in the nineteenth edition of Parliamentary Practice page 72, the Lords communicated this resolution to the Commons at a conference: That neither House of Parliament hath any power, by any vote, or declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege, that is not warranted by the known laws and custom of Parliament; That was assented to by the Commons. May comments: It is agreed that by itself neither House can create a new privilege. Prima facie, it would be a strange way to protect the Parliament to say that no new element in politics, administration and the media which has arisen since 1704 can be raised as a breach of privilege. The vexed question of the relationship between Parliament and the public service is a far more fundamental issue than the action of journalists who figuratively thumb their noses at Parliamentarians. This came out in the Berthelsen case, probably the most important case of privilege dealt with for many years in this Parliament, but a case which was not given, I think, the degree of consideration in the House for its serious implication. If privilege is to survive, it has to be re-examined, renovated and its administration must always be subject to the application of natural justice, open procedures and the right to defence by counsel. In the dissenting report that the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy) and I wrote we, at that stage, took the view that privilege ought to be referred to a competent court and that, because of the special problems involved where parliamentarians were protecting their own interests, it ought not to be dealt with by them. This was one area on which I gave way as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. My overwhelming concern was that the Parliament should declare where it stood on the matter of privilege. We should bring the Constitution up to date, to look at contemporary practice and be bound not by what the members of the House of Commons felt in the late Victorian era but by what we in the last quarter of the twentieth century felt about our privileges in own country. I was anxious that there ought to be a unanimous report from the members of the Committee. This was one point on which I was prepared to give way. I gave way on this basis: It was better to have an Act before the Parliament to have it enacted and to have both Houses of the Parliament declare their privileges. Then, if in two or five years time it needed to be amended, it could be. The important thing was to break the ice. The worst thing that could happen would be if this legislation were not enacted. The second worst thing would be if it were to be enacted and it remained frozen in the ice for another 85 years, two months and 18 days without ever being revised. It is appropriate, perhaps, that I should express my satisfaction with the work done by the Committee. In particular, I praise its Chairman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) as well as the other members of the Committee. The Committee comprised: Mr J. M. Spender, QC, MP and Senator the Honourable G. J. Evans QC-Chairman and Deputy Chairman-the Honourable A. E. Adermann, MP; Senator George Georges; Mr Alan Griffiths, MP; the Honourable Clyde Holding, MP; and Senator D. S. Jessop, the Honourable Barry Jones, Senator M. J. Macklin and Senator Peter Rae, as he was then. He is now the Honourable Peter Rae. I also thank the Secretary Mr Bernard Wright for the work that he put into the Committee. Mr Spender —Was that in the Thirty-second Parliament? Mr BARRY JONES —No, that was in the Thirty-third Parliament. That was the group which prepared the report actually tabled. There were one or two changes in the Thirty-second Parliament. Senator Kilgariff and Mr J. R. Porter were in the Committee during the previous Parliament. Essentially, the cast was the same. Mr Adermann —The quality remained. Mr BARRY JONES —Absolutely. The major objection to the present law of privilege cases relates firstly to the secrecy of the transaction and the denial of representation by counsel. As I say, the third objection that I used to have-that is that the Parliament act as a judge in its own cause-is something that I forgo the luxury of criticising because I am satisfied with the report that we have in front of us. It was unanimously agreed to by the members of the House of Representatives involved, but with some dissent from Senators Jessop and Peter Rae. Nevertheless, they had some queries relating to eight of the total number of recommendations. In practice the Committee on Privilege operated as a secret committee. In my experience, explicit warnings were given by the Chairman both to witnesses and to Committee members that they were not to divulge any details of evidence or of procedures adopted or resolutions that were debated to any other person. There was no standing order declaring the Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to be a secret committee, but it seemed to be a matter of practice of long standing for all Committees of Privilege to hear witnesses in secret. It may be assumed that historically this was the practice in the House of Commons. As a matter of practice persons accused of breaches of privilege were not entitled to put an argument as to why they should be represented by counsel, although in the 1955 Bankstown Observer case-the case of Fitzpatrick and Browne-and the Laurie Oakes case counsel were entitled to put an argument as to why they should be entitled to act in the proceedings. In both cases the Committees concluded that the operation of section 49 of the Constitution and Standing Order 1 of the House of Representatives precluded legal representation. However, it is worth noting that in the House of Commons counsel have not been permitted to appear before the House of Commons Committee of Privileges to defend persons accused of breaches of privilege during the hearing of evidence since the 1770s. I said that historically three elements-that is the holding of hearings in secret, including the cross-examination of witnesses; people being summonsed and being denied the right to be assisted by counsel; and, members of parliament taking roles as prosecutors and judges-between them constituted a denial of natural justice. I believe that parliamentary privilege is and ought to remain a powerful weapon. I agree with the words of the 1967 House of Commons Select Committee report that the power to punish be exercised as sparingly as possible and only `to provide reasonable protection . . . from such improper obstruction . . . as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions by the House, its Members or its Officers'. Over-use of the powers of privilege would lead to undesirable results. If the Parliament acts arbitrarily and in secret and overrides natural justice, the whole justification of parliamentary privilege will be overturned. Similarly, if no new development in society since 1704, such as the invention of television or the rise of the over mighty public servant within the bureaucracy, can be raised as a matter of privilege, parliamentary privilege will be reduced to the status of a mere exhibit in a museum of parliamentary practice. I apologise that I missed the earlier debate, owing to my preoccupations in another place. I note that the most important parts of the Committee's report deal with the question of penalties and procedures. I applaud in particular the recommendation on page 6. The report states: (a) The hearings of the Privileges Committee shall be in public, subject to a discretion in the Committee to conduct hearings in camera when it considers that the circumstances are such as to warrant this course; (b) The whole of the transcript of evidence shall be published, and shall be presented to its House by the Committee when it makes its Report, subject however to a discretion to exclude evidence which has been heard in camera and to prevent the publication of such evidence by any other means; (c) Issues before the Committee should be adequately defined so that person or organisation against whom a complaint has been made is reasonably apprised of the nature of the complaint he has to meet; . . . . (e) A person against whom a complaint is made, and an organisation through its representative, should have the right to be present throughout the whole of the proceedings, save for deliberative proceedings and save where in the opinion of the Committee he or she should be excluded from the hearing of proceedings in camera . . . One of the penalties that will be abolished is expulsion from the House. That penalty has been invoked only once in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament in the entirely deplorable case of Hugh Mahon back in 1920. That case, perhaps the nadir of the parliamentary system in Australia, was never referred to a committee of privilege. In the absence of the honourable member, because he had broken his leg and was not in the House on the day, his expulsion was moved without any prior warning by the then Prime Minister, Mr W. M. Hughes, and despite protests from some members of the Opposition it was despatched forthwith and Mahon was eliminated from the House. We believed that the power of expulsion should be abolished. First of all, we thought that realistically it was very unlikely that it would ever be invoked. We might privately think some of our fellow parliamentarians are pretty dodgy, but it is very difficult to conceive of a situation where any party would chose to use its numbers. It is very difficult to think of any circumstances under which a committee of privilege would be disposed to use its numbers. There would be great public revulsion. If a member were convicted of a major offence, of course, under the provisions of Section 44 of the Constitution, that person would lose his or her right to sit. However, the capacity to impose a fine was introduced. That is a novelty, but it was thought to be important because in many cases the malefactor in an offence would not be some wretched journalist who was hauled before the Bar of the House, but some malefactor of great wealth and power and it seemed to us appropriate that a fine should be imposed with a penalty of imprisonment in default thereof. The final point, which is particularly important, is the abolition of the offence of defamatory contempt. In other words, to say that members of Parliament generally are a whole pack of bludgers seems to us to be just in the category of vulgar abuse and not worth the resources of the Parliament to proceed with such an offence. However, if individuals are identified and subjected to unreasonable pressure, that is when the power of privilege needs to be invoked, and invoked strongly. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(6.42) —As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which was charged with investigating matters associated with parliamentary privilege and reporting to Parliament, I strongly support the general philosophy of the Parliament (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill presented by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I commend the work of that Committee and the chairmanship of the honourable member for North Sydney. When I first sat on that Committee, I was somewhat apprehensive, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) may well understand, because I saw around me so many eminent men of the law. However, I found it a very good Committee and one which gave very special attention to the matters with which it was charged. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for North Sydney, the Committee's recommendations fall into three groups: First, those requiring implementation by statute; secondly, those requiring amendment of the Standing Orders; and, thirdly, those requiring resolutions by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill deals specifically with those requiring implementation by statute. However, in many ways, unless attention is given to the amendment of the Standing Orders, this legislation will advance us but partially along the track. It would be unfortunate if the Parliament did not consider the totality of the recommendations if we are concerned about the definition and scope of parliamentary privilege. If we are to go along the path of statute legislation without any resolve to consider our Standing Orders, I can foresee a committee being set up to cover the same range of inquiry as this Committee has covered, bringing in much the same type of recommendations. If we are to define the rules of parliamentary privilege governing our Parliament, as distinct from the practice of relying on the precedent of the House of Commons, let us attend to the matter in some sort of totality rather than just fiddle around the edges and go a little way. While supporting the thrust of the Bill and endorsing what the honourable member for North Sydney has said-that this Bill has been brought in for debate and consideration and perhaps for amendment-I believe that this Bill alone, even if it were passed as presently presented or as amended, would not complete the task unless we attended to the other recommendations of the Committee. The important aspect of the Bill which should be understood is that it does not erode the rights of members of the Parliament. That very necessary situation which guarantees privileges and immunities is not disturbed. If those privileges and immunities are circumscribed or reduced, they are destroyed and that would be a tragedy for our parliamentary system and our democratic processes. This Bill does not set out to disturb that situation. If it did, we would not be supporting it. The Bill confers a very limited and highly circumscribed power on the full High Court of Australia to express an opinion that a resolution of the House to commit an offender to prison is in some way deficient. The Parliament can accept or reject that advice. Indeed, in our discussions in the Committee, there was a lot of debate on whether decisions of the Parliament to punish offences against the House should be referable to a court, particularly as to the appropriate penalty. My view from the outset-and, happily, it was the view also of the Committee-was that that proposition was untenable, that Parliament must be the controller of its own operations. Parliament must have the capacity to adjudicate and to accept the responsibility and even the odium, if necessary, for its decisions. If a judge decides in a court that a person is guilty of contempt of court, he passes the sentence that he deems appropriate on the offender. He does not ask Parliament to consider the appropriate sentence, nor does he refer it to some other court. He does this because he knows the circumstances of the particular action being tried, the influence the contempt could have upon the case and the degree of seriousness which applies to that contempt. Why then should the Parliament ask a court to determine the penalty for what it judges to be contempt when the Parliament is the institution which is best equipped to judge the seriousness of the contempt upon its own operations and its own integrity? I have no fundamental objection to the limited power which this Bill would ascribe to the High Court. However, I would-and I believe the Committee would-have opposed any move to grant to the courts any greater power than that. We discussed at length the rights of the accused to be heard in their defence and we felt it would be preferable for that defence to be made before the Parliament than in some court remote from the circumstances and the situation. The Bill also provides that the Parliament should not have the power to expel a member for contempt. As we have heard, on the only occasion when the Australian Parliament used that power, it was very debatable that that was the correct action for the Parliament to take. In the history of the Australian Parliament since that time-indeed, since I have been in the Parliament-there have been many statements and interjections which, by the same yardstick, could equally have been adjudged treasonable or seditious. This is a power which has the potential for being used capriciously, vindictively and politically. A member is here because the Australian people in his electorate have elected him. They have the power at election to endorse or dismiss him. If Parliament takes upon itself the right to expel a member, unless under the provisions of the Constitution he becomes disqualified, a cardinal plank in the democratic edifice is, I believe, removed. The Parliament itself has the power to suspend a member and I have thought seriously about this power. I believe-and I speak for myself, because members on this side of the House may not necessarily agree with me-that that power should only be used by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. I say that because they are the two officers who are elected by this House to those positions. I believe, too, that there should be a procedure of warnings set down very clearly and the member should be made aware that he or she is incurring the wrath or the ire of the Chair. I have never been very much attracted to the situation in which the Leader of the House or someone else has to move a motion. I have never been attracted to the situation in which the Speaker, having named a member, requires a vote to be taken. I say that without any inference against the occupants of the chair. I have always felt very much for those who occupy the chair in this House. We had an incident-and I pass no comment on it-where a member was named in this House and yet the House did not vote for the suspension of that member. Mr Young —That has happened twice. Mr ADERMANN —Yes. I am not making a political point of that but it has always seemed rather strange to me that a Speaker or Deputy Speaker, who is elected to that position, can name a member and say that the member should be suspended, but the matter then goes to a vote. In the political atmosphere, a vote is taken and that seems to be rather strange. I believe that once we have elected the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, those persons should have the authority on their own, without requiring the motion, to make such a suspension, provided they give the necessary warnings. The Parliament has a redress if it is not happy with the action or the attitude of a Speaker. It can move a vote of no confidence against the Speaker. While the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker enjoy the confidence of the House, our present procedure seems unnecessary. I bring that aspect of it into the debate only because I believe that, when we are looking at the Standing Orders, matters such as this ought to be looked at. I believe too that the House has a right to expect the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker not to wait until somebody objects to a statement-for instance, when there is an inference of mental incompetence or something like that, or some insulting remark is made against a member-before asking for a withdrawal. That is a matter for Standing Orders, but I do endorse very much the thrust of this Bill which takes away from the House of right to expel a member-something that this House ought never to do. The Bill legally supports protection to members, officers of the Houses, and witnesses before committees against liability for defamation. That is both sensible and necessary if committees are to be effective. I think that requires little further amplification beyond the comments of the honourable member for North Sydney. The Bill also provides, and I think very necessarily provides, under item 7 of the explanatory notes for the creation of the offence of interfering with a witness by reason of the fact that he or she is about to appear before or has appeared before or has given particular evidence before a House or parliamentary committee. I think it is very necessary that that offence be established, otherwise the work of our committees and the course of inquiry that they are required to take could be very much jeopardised. A sensible amendment limits the duration of immunity from arrest on civil process and compulsory attendance as a witness to five days before and after the sitting of the House or committee. As the honourable member for North Sydney points out, that 40-day immunity may have been appropriate when travel was exceedingly slow and arduous, but it is not appropriate today. The immunity is necessary if a member is to attend to his responsibilities in attending the Parliament or a committee. It is also useful against any capricious attempt to prevent his attendance by some frivolous suit. But that can be ensured within this Bill without frustrating his availability where his testimony as a witness might be of some import. Other than the right to expel and to imprison, the existing powers of the Parliament are indeed limited. Both powers are extreme and are not always appropriate. This Bill, for the first time, introduces the capacity to levy a fine. I am not sure whether the suggested quantum of fines is the most appropriate. Certainly the necessity for this lesser sanction is evident and it commands support. The other major change envisaged by the Bill and upon which constructive debate could ensue is the abolition as a head of contempt of the offence known as libels on parliament or defamatory contempts. I believe the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who spoke just before me, covered that very adequately. The Bill maintains the power to deal with such situations as intimidation coupled with defamatory comment and does not interfere with the existing right of a member to sue for defamation at law. On balance, I favour that change, but I believe that if this course is adopted it will be all the more necessary to ensure that the Standing Orders are reviewed so that the quality and standards of parliamentary behaviour are enhanced. I commend the honourable member for North Sydney and those who were on that Committee. It was a very difficult subject and problem that was handed to it. I believe that this Committee, as have many committees I have served on, has shown a remarkable degree of bipartisanship. I commend the honourable member for his dedication to the examination and handing of the charter to which we were given, I commend his handling of the inquiry and I commend the great amount of research and input that he contributed. I also commend the Bill that he has brought forward and his attitude that it should be brought forward in the spirit that it should be considered, debated and perhaps amended if we can arrive at a better Bill. He said that it could be amended without causing any affront to him. What he has done is to ensure that the Parliament carefully and soberly considers the important matter of privilege. For that I think he deserves the thanks of this Parliament. The consideration he has asked for should continue and not cease or be shelved with any decision on this Bill. Let me again state that this Bill is intended to redress only those aspects which require amendment by statute. That is but part of our considerations and I believe that, through discussion in both Houses and through the Standing Orders Committee, there is very much more to consider. From this Bill we can and should progress to this wide and comprehensive consideration of parliamentary privilege and the appropriateness of our practices, procedures and rules pertaining to this question. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(6.55) —This is for me a rather unusual contribution to parliamentary debates because it is not a matter that I have given a great deal of thought to in recent times. However, the opportunity to speak has presented itself and, being a relatively new member of the Parliament, I would like to make a number of comments with respect to the Parliament (Powers, Privileges and Immunities) Bill as proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The first comment I make concerns what I see as the nature of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary contempt. It seems to me that parliamentary privilege is all about power, and of course no section of the community readily gives up power that it has exercised for any period. It is perhaps not to be unexpected that members of Parliament have been equally reluctant to give up the powers that they have possessed through the law of contempt of Parliament and parliamentary privilege. Indeed, as the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) indicated, after some 85 years we are still stuck with the rather moribund and totally inadequate powers that we had conferred on us as a new nation by section 49 of the Australian Constitution. Soon after I came into the Parliament I was given the opportunity to be appointed to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Privileges. No one asked me before I was appointed or elected to that position for my views on the subject of parliamentary privilege. Perhaps if my views had been known I would not have been permitted to go on that Committee because I stand unashamedly as a supporter of the view that members of parliament should not confer on themselves, other than in extremely narrowly defined and circumscribed circumstances, powers and authorities that are not conferred on members of the outside community. I do not believe that we can readily justify having one law for members of parliament and different laws for the members of the community who do not have the opportunity to sit on these green leather benches. I believe that the Bill put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney is a commendable first step in reframing the law of contempt and parliamentary privilege as it exists in Australia today. However, as I will indicate in my contribution to this debate, I believe that it falls well short of what the Parliament ought to accept as a revised law. The debate that has proceeded so far has been to a very large extent of academic interest, and it is a tragedy that this debate is unlikely to be even reported in the media at all, given the fact that I do not think there is one single journalist in the Press Gallery. That is also regrettable because it has been members of the media who have felt the brunt of the law of contempt of Parliament. I would have thought that it was in their interests, as working journalists, and in the interests of their proprietors that the matter of contempt of Parliament be a matter for public debate. I think that the greater the public debate that occurs at this time the more likely we are to have a law and practice that reflect wider community standards rather than simply reflecting the rather narrow and cloistered view that I think we will ultimately reach here because of the vested interests that members of Parliament have in the final outcome of this debate. I have a unique contribution to make in this debate because I am one of the few people who have been accused of having committed a contempt of Parliament before becoming a member of the Chamber. When I was formerly a solicitor working with the Aboriginal Legal Service, I had cause to be critical of what I believed to be the deficiencies of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when it was conducting its inquiry into the former asbestos mine at Baryulgil in New South Wales. I made comments that were very mild and could easily have been made with impunity when addressing the inadequacies of any other members of the community in equivalent circumstances. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) raised the matter as a concern and as at least a suggestion of a breach of parliamentary privilege and it was not proceeded with. I think that that provides a rather good example of someone-as I then was-acting in the course of my employment, raising concerns which I was paid to do in the course of my employment as a solicitor with the Aboriginal Legal Service, yet finding myself at least the subject of an allegation, albeit a misplaced one, of having committed a breach of privilege. So I can speak, although a new member of parliament, at least with some very practical and direct experience of the law of contempt of parliament. Before I deal with what I believe to be some of the inadequacies of the Bill, I would like to compliment the honourable member for North Sydney and the Minister for the very bi-partisan and fair way in which this matter is being conducted in the Parliament. It is a credit to the honourable member for North Sydney that he remained the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege following the change of government. Frankly, I believe that is one easy way, I would hope, to achieve some social change in this country in regard to matters on which there is common agreement: We do not always have to be pitted against each other when clearly there is a need for reform, when times have changed and when this Parliament ought to move with those times. With the assistance of the contribution by the honourable member for North Sydney, I would like briefly to trace some of the major initiatives that form the basis of his Bill. The chief provision of the Bill is to put beyond argument the protection given to members and officers of the Houses, and witnesses before committees, against liability for defamation in those areas where there is doubt. I must say, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament, that I believe it vital that we ensure that anyone who gives evidence before a parliamentary committee, whether it be a committee of the House of Representatives or any other parliamentary committee, can do so with the full protection of that committee and of the privilege of the Parliament in giving that evidence. The second major initiative in the Bill is to limit the duration of the protection given to members of parliament with respect to immunity from arrest on civil process and also immunity from compulsory attendance as a witness. Again, I think that there can be no criticism of that provision. It is a reform that clearly is at least a century overdue. The third initiative in the Bill is to abolish as a head of contempt, and hence of punishment, the offence known as libels of parliament or defamatory contempts. Again, I hope there would be common ground in this area. I would like to return to this area in speaking about what I believe to be some of the deficiencies that have yet to be remedied, despite the general support given to this Bill. The fourth effect of the Bill is that it removes the power of Houses to expel members. Of course, as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) pointed out, that power has not been exercised for 65 years. On the one occasion on which it was exercised, it was exercised in a rather brutal and partisan manner. It occurred because arguably a member of parliament, acting in his capacity as a member of parliament, made some comments that were unacceptable to the members of the then governing party and, to put it brutally frankly, they then sought retribution. As a result of that, the member, Mr Hugh Mahon, lost his seat in the Parliament. I commend the honourable member for North Sydney for removing yet another anachronism. Another effect of the Bill is that it confirms a very limited and highly circumscribed-to use the words of the honourable member for North Sydney-power in the full High Court of Australia to express an opinion that a resolution by a House to commit an offender to prison is in some way deficient. Again, I think this is an important initiative but, as the honourable member pointed out in his contribution, the court cannot go behind the facts stated in the resolution and, regardless of the court's views, the decision remains entirely that of the House concerned, which may entirely reject those views. Honourable members can see from that that the Parliament continues to maintain its overwhelming and substantially untrammelled power to be able to execute the law of contempt of parliament. I note that clause 5 of the Bill provides a substantial restatement of section 49 of the Constitution which is, of course, to the effect that until parliament provides otherwise the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons as at 1901 continue to apply to this House. Of course, in my view that is one of the major deficiencies of the Bill. I believe that we can find common ground to be able to take the moves for reform a lot further. What I am proposing is not in any way, I believe, a radical reform. I believe that what I am proposing is in accordance with the public opinion of mainstream Australian society today. It simply will not accept members of parliament conferring on themselves rights, powers and privileges that do not belong in the wider community, unless we can produce very good reasons in the broader public interest why those powers ought to be maintained, as I think we can in the case of the various parliamentary committees. I will briefly discuss two of the major controversial cases that have spirited the movement for reform. First, there is the Fitzpatrick and Browne case. This case, of course, is now an integral part of Australian legal and political folklore and one which, I think it is common ground, does not reflect well on the House at that time. I commend that aspect of the Bill which would seek to remove the defamation of the Parliament, to use the phrase that was at least in part, but not entirely, behind the Fitzpatrick and Browne case. Despite that, there are other aspects of the Fitzpatrick and Browne case that, as I understand it, would not be remedied by this Bill. There was, for example, in that case an attempt by Mr Fitzpatrick before the committee to seek legal representation. One of the great ironies, of course, is that the committee in its wisdom saw fit to permit him the right to address the committee on that question. Having heard from him, it then refused any right to legal representation. It is also a matter of continuing concern that, despite the enormous lapse of time that has occurred since that case, we still really do not know what happened before that committee because the evidence cited by the committee in its report is only a small portion of the transcript and the full transcript has never been made public. Of course, because the hearing was held in camera there have been no Press accounts of it. When Fitzpatrick and Browne came before the Bar of the House, again there was a denial of the right to legal representation. Subsequently, the Prime Minister moved that each respondent be committed to the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police in Canberra or to the custody of the keeper of the gaol, and were there to be kept in custody until 10 September or until earlier dissolution of the Parliament, unless the House earlier allowed their discharge. Despite an attempt to secure their discharge, the majority did not support that view and as a result they languished in gaol. It seems to me that this case raises some extremely important matters. If we, as members of Parliament, would defend the right to legal representation in courts of law when people are charged with criminal offences, if we defend the right of the people to a fair hearing, if we defend as we all would, the presumption of innocence, and if we all oppose retrospective criminal offences or penalties, as we all would, in my view there can be no place at all for allowing the procedures that currently exist in this Parliament for dealing with contempts of Parliament and breaches of privilege to stand. We might have a difference of opinion in this chamber about whether a Bill of Rights is required in this country, but the matters of which I spoke a moment ago, relating to the principle of natural justice and the right to a fair trial, are in the Bill of Rights. We as a government-I speak as a member of the Government-have an obligation not to be prepared to let double standards prevail. We as a government cannot in good conscience promote views on natural justice and human rights that are supposed to apply in the courts of the land and throughout the States of Australia if we do not apply consistently those same basic rights of fairness in this chamber. Although I commend the honourable member for North Sydney for his initiative, I believe that we must go further and apply in this chamber those standards of fairness that we expect to apply right throughout this country. I repeat that, although there may be differences about the Bill of Rights, there would be no difference of opinion-except for the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper)-on the paramountcy of the rights to which I have referred. I mention briefly the Oakes case, because that is relevant also. Although one of the consequences of the Spender Bill will be to remove this aspect of contempt of Parliament, it is very important that we reflect on the case involving Laurie Oakes and the Daily Mirror. Although the report concerned was reprehensible-perhaps no more reprehensible than many other reports which appear in the Daily Mirror-it ought not to have been the subject of any action for breach of privilege. As other members have said, what happened was that a story in the Daily Mirror suggested that it was not all hard work or stress for Australia's Federal members of parliament and that many have little or nothing to do other than sit around the members' bar boozing and whingeing. The article went on in similar terms. That incident occupied a great deal of the time of this Parliament. Finally the Committee of Privileges found that there had been a contempt of the House of Representatives by the author, editor and publisher. However, the Committee was of the view that no further action should be taken. Many things happen in the wider community where members of parliament are subjected to a great deal of personal abuse. I must say that I am not sure whether I have the temperament to be a long term member of parliament, because some of the criticisms made of members of parliament are ill-informed, baseless, malicious and can be very hurtful to not only the members of parliament but also their families. I saw a doctor in a hospital the other day wearing a badge which said: `Trust me, I'm a doctor'. I thought that one step further in the audacity stakes would be for members of parliament to walk down the corridors wearing a badge which says: `Trust me, I'm a politician'. Such is the standing of members of parliament, quite unjustly, I think. While I deplore many of the views of the Opposition, I cannot think of one member of parliament who does not work extremely hard. The hours of attendance alone in this place are more than most people in the wider community would be prepared to endure. Be that as it may, my point is that we must have broad shoulders. Part of the price we pay for living in a democracy is that people have the right of freedom of speech. If people want to attack members of parliament, doctors or any other member of the community, they ought to be able to do so. I believe that our shoulders have to be broad enough to accept that criticism and to be able to carry on the process of democracy. I conclude by echoing the call made by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). This is 1986 and in the course of this Parliament we have seen the passage of the Australia Bill, for which there was bipartisan support. Let us see some bipartisan support for reforming the antiquated and unacceptable position with respect to parliamentary privilege. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.15) —The high interest rates of the Australian Labor Party are starting to cripple the lives of ordinary Australians. Tonight I join with my colleagues from all over Australia to highlight the human suffering caused by Labor's economic mismanagement. We present to the House evidence which we were told last week by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) did not exist. John and Alice are a young couple who will remain anonymous. They have enough problems without having the Press on their doorsteps. The tragedy of their story is being repeated across the country. This is their story. John and Alice have one child and Alice is pregnant with their second. They live in my electorate and John works locally. They listened to the 1984 election rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he said that a further interest rate fall is ahead of us. They heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying that the economy was in great shape and they heard of government grants for first home buyers. So with this encouragement they looked at lots of houses until at last they found the home that was to fulfil a lifetime's dream-the family home. It was new and had a nice kitchen, but no floor coverings, electric light fittings or garden. But that was no problem because they looked forward to saving for their home and John would enjoy the satisfaction of getting the garden going and putting up fences to keep in the dog and the kids. John and Alice's home cost $51,000, plus expenses of $2,500. It was funded by a loan of $46,500, the Government grant and their own savings. Their monthly payments were $414.23. After 12 months, before the garden had started to take shape. Labor's high interest rates were starting to bite. With Alice's pregnancy, a cut back in John's overtime, a general dissipation of confidence in the economy, and increasing State and Federal taxes, the massive increase in the monthly house payments-up $195.77 to $610-finally awoke them to the reality that their lifetime dream was quickly turning into a nightmare. They have been sensible. They have cut their losses and have voluntarily given up the dream, but not without financial and emotional cost, because the residential market is also entering a horror patch. Last week John and Alice sold their home for $50,600. That was a net drop of over $6,000; ironically, a similar figure to the amount provided under the first home owner's grant scheme. One of my local agents told me that from January-February 1985 to January-February 1986 house sales had dropped by two-thirds; for another agent the drop has been 50 per cent. People are not buying houses because they are uncertain about our future and big money is needed to support the shandy loans or cocktail loans that are available. A $50,000 loan last week cost one Frankston couple $164 per week-$81 per week for $30,000 over 25 years and $83 per week for $20,000 at 17.75 per cent per annum over 10 years. John and Alice's problems are still not over. They will move out in the next few weeks into the rental market, where once again Labor has put hurdles in their way. The capital gains tax, the removal of negative gearing and high interest rates have jacked up rents and restricted the number of houses and units for rent. If they can find a place to rent in Hastings, they will pay $110 per week for a three bedroom house-up from $70 per week in 1985-or if they take a two bedroom unit, the figure is up 37 per cent from 1985 to around $115 per week. It is no wonder that the Victorian builder Spaceline Homes Pty Ltd went into receivership last week, nor is it any wonder that the Socialist Left member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) said recently that under Labor homelessness was increasing. The Government is oblivious to the fact that, in the words of one agent in my electorate, the building industry is in a state of financial paralysis. It is time the Government realised that it is crushing the hopes and aspirations of increasing numbers of Australians who merely want to own their own homes. John and Alice are not alone. Their immediate neighbour is a young mother who is living on her own and paying an extra $90 a month. Further down the street another couple is struggling to pay the additional $130 a month. Across Australia the story is being repeated, in every street and in every suburb. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! the honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.20) —I want to respond to a personal explanation made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) last Friday. I do not think it was a personal explanation as such; it was a misuse of the forms of the House. I have no objection to that; I would do the same if I thought it was worth while. Under the guise of explaining this personal misrepresentation the honourable member for O'Connor was able to continue his campaign of deceit on the subject of interstate trucking. It must be appreciated that the honourable member for O'Connor, as the Liberal Party of Australia's spokesman on transport, has in fact supplanted the other Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who no doubt will be greatly embarrassed by the ranting and ravings of the honourable member for O'Connor. To the credit of the honourable for Murray, he does understand the legislation and does realise that what the honourable member for O'Connor is saying is sheer nonsense and hypocrisy. The honourable member for O'Connor is quick to point to the specific provisions of the interstate road freight legislation, but only in isolation because it does not suit him to have all the facts on the Federal Government's new initiative go out to the truckies. He would prefer to stick to the simple rhetoric of the Philadelphia lawyer and keep truckies in ignorance. The fact is that in association with the Federal legislation the States will need to remove the speed differences between trucks and cars and provide truckies with some consumer protection. It is also a fact that the level of the registration fee will not be finally set until the Inter-state Commission has reported on the relative levels of cost recovery for road and rail transport. Furthermore, there will be an option-I repeat, an option-to fit a monitoring device to trucks, prime movers and trailers. That has been made crystal clear and despite attempts by the honourable member for O'Connor, the truckies know that. If a truckie travels in excess of 160,000 kilometres a year, obviously the flat fee of a maximum of $1,400 a year will be economic. If that distance is not travelled it becomes attractive to pay as you go-that is, to adopt a pro rata system of payment-and to measure the distance a monitoring device will need to be fitted to the truckie's truck and trailer. Quite clearly it is an option that the truckie has. I might also add that this device can be used as a defence in the event of a police prosecution for speeding or some other road offences but it cannot be used by the police for prosecution. The honourable member for O'Connor has been running a one man campaign against the badly needed reforms of the interstate road freight industry-reforms recommended by all parties and fully supported by all industry groups. What we have here is not an effective Opposition position but a cheap and deceitful campaign being waged by the honourable member for O'Connor and one or two of his redneck cronies who tried, unsuccessfully, to beat up the issue during the recent State election campaign. The results speak for themselves. If the honourable member for O'Connor seeks to spread doubt and suspicion, I can only say that any truckie in this country would be a very poor judge if he placed his trust in him rather than in the Government. In conclusion, there is a great danger in people going around the country talking half-truths because it is quite clear that they have forgotten where they have put the truth. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(7.25) —This Labor Government's high interest rates policy is like a black hole in outer space, consuming everything and everyone before it so that they are never to be seen again. Farmers, home buyers and small businessmen everywhere in the electorate of Gilmore are falling into the Government's high interest rates black hole. I raise the case tonight of a farm machinery retailing company in the western portion of the electorate of Gilmore. The founder of that company was one of the great pioneers of the western districts of my electorate. He formed the company in 1934 and sold some of the most modern farm machinery of that time, when farmers were still using horse-drawn ploughs and breaking sods with their bare hands. Since 1934 the company has survived the Great Depression and one world war. It has been gradually passed down through the family. Today it is managed by a grandson of the founder. However, the grandson fears that this company, which has been in his family for more than 50 years and served the farmers of the south-western district of New South Wales, will follow the path of other small business and be sucked into the Government's high interest rates black hole. He cannot sell his farm machinery because the farmers he relies upon for his business cannot afford to buy new or used machinery or accessories and spare parts because of the high cost of interest under the hire purchase and lease arrangements that they have to undertake. No matter what deal this machinery dealer offers, even if it means he will lose money on the deal, nobody can afford to buy or replace farm machinery at the moment. The story is the same with other farm machinery retailers in my electorate. This particular gentleman has been forced to sack staff. When times were good he employed 19 local residents but now he employs only seven. Sacking staff was the hardest thing he had to do. How does a man who lives in a small community where everybody knows everybody else and knows each other's business sack his neighbours and friends, sack the long term employees with whom he has built up a degree of trust, when everybody in that town needs a job? Most of those workers had families to feed, clothe and house. They had bills to pay on their homes, cars and other simple necessities that we all think that we would like to enjoy. For some of those families the prospect of living on the dole and being forced to seek assistance from charities was too much to bear in a small community. Four families were forced to sell their homes, pack up and move to Sydney in search of work. What has become of them is unknown. Two other former employees of that farm machinery company were also forced to leave their homes, relatives and friends in search of work in another part of the State. This small community cannot afford to lose residents, their spending capacity and their general expertise and input into the lifestyle of the community. It has a negative effect on that community because the stores and other businesses where those people once shopped or sought entertainment are now minus their custom. One worker who also lost his job found new employment at a nearby retirement village as a caretaker. He is engaged in menial tasks compared to the high responsibilities he once held with his previous employer. The rest of the people who lost their jobs with this farm machinery retailer are believed to be on the dole while searching for work. The future of those who remain with the company appears no brighter. The plight of this farm machinery retailer is indicative of the disastrous state of the rural economy brought about the policies of this Government. Another small business that reels under the same pressures of high interest rates is a new and used car yard in the eastern portion of my electorate of Gilmore. It is a well-known yard that has been operating in the area for many years. The hike in interest rates has forced the owner to lay off staff, cut back on costs and go to the extent of selling some of his personal possessions. Under a floor plan used to finance the cars in his business, the interest bill on money he has borrowed has increased from $11,000 a month to $16,000 a month-that is, $5,000 a month more or $60,000 a year more because of this Government's interest rates policies. He has had to sack employees and has had to sell his own personal possessions in order to keep his business going, to keep employment and some sort of economy going in his own area. All of these things have a negative impact on the community. There is no question that the interest rates policies of this Government are causing unemployment, hardship and personal disruption to family life right throughout country New South Wales. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.30) —Last Thursday I spoke during the grievance debate about criticism of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace document entitled `Working for a Just Peace'. I must say that this criticism is the most ill founded and ill informed that I have ever heard. Because I had to condense a 10-minute speech into four minutes, I take this opportunity further to expand my comments. In the Australian newspaper last week the Catholic Church was accused of deception in peace funding. This is rubbish. There has been no deception. The whole debate on the justice and peace statement is about the meaning of aid. It is easy to give aid. It relieves our conscience. Let us make no mistake, it is often our lifestyle in the overdeveloped world that leads to the poverty of the less developed world. How do we correct this? We correct it by educating Australians to the reality of underdevelopment. It is too easy just to give money with no challenges to our lifestyle, to our duties as citizens of the world. To continue what I said in the House last week during the grievance debate, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace questions in its document the morality of spending so much on waging war and so little on making peace. I join with the Commission in asking these questions. I put it to the House that these are questions which must be asked. To decry world hunger and the poverty of millions of people in the Third World and not ask these questions-questions about expenditure on defence and questions about lifestyle-is to sink into the depths of stupidity, criminality and total hypocrisy. This, of course, is not the first time the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace has been criticised, nor, I hope, will it be the last. When it ceases to be criticised I know it will no longer be performing its role of challenging on moral grounds the status quo and the conventional wisdom of Australian society. Some years ago, the Commission was attacked for challenging the conventional wisdom that supported the minority white regime of what was then called Rhodesia, and is now called Zimbabwe. Then, in August 1977, Bishop Lamont arrived in Australia from Zimbabwe and what he had to say thoroughly vindicated the Commission and its attackers fell silent. More recently, the Commission was attacked for daring to criticise the repressive regime of ex-President Marcos of the Philippines. Suddenly, the attacks stopped. Why did this happen? This happened because suddenly it became fashionable to be anti-Marcos and pro-Aquino. Thus, once again, history has vindicated the stand taken by the Commission. Although I said the criticism stopped, an article in yesterday's Melbourne Age by Michael Barnard said that Australian Catholic Relief co-operated with the anti-democratic revolutionary groups in the Philippines, that is, they co-operated with anti-Marcos forces. Michael Barnard argued about Australian Catholic Relief's readiness to place trust and credibility in the far left Filipino groups. Really, where did he expect it to put its trust? Did he expect it to put its trust in Marcos and his cronies? I have visited the Philippines several times. I first went to the Philippines some years ago and when I worked with Australian Catholic Relief. I went to the Philippines to see and to experience the realities of aid. I did not go to the fleshpots of Manila. The only place I visited in Manila was the Tonda area. In the Philippines I saw wealth and luxury like I had never seen before. I also saw unbelievable poverty. I then went to Samar for a couple of weeks. In fact, I believe I was the first Australian to raise the question of the northern Samar integrated pro- ject. However, at that time no one wanted to know; that is, no one except the Catholic Church, especially Australian Catholic Relief and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. I have mentioned the Commission's role in raising the consciousness in regard to Zimbabwe and the Philippines. I could speak for hours regarding Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and other countries to which aid is given. But I put it to this House: Will the Commission be subsequently vindicated for its stand on nuclear disarmament and the arms race? If the human race somehow survives these dreadful and perilous times, I believe it will. I congratulate the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace for asking these questions. I also congratulate it for providing the sane and moral context within which those questions need to be answered. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.35) —I rise to join my colleagues in the concerted attack on the Government's current policy of high interest rates and on the impact this policy is having on small Australians, small businessmen and workers across the country. Much has been made in this House and much has been said about the fallacy of high interest rates. But there has been no action from the Government to provide any sort of relief for those who are currently suffering and are being sent bankrupt by the existing policy. I take up the remarks of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). Madam Speaker, I want to take you to a little town in my electorate known as Bute at the top of the peninsula. This is a small town which is set in one of the favoured areas of Wakefield. It is set in a 14-inch rainfall area where large farmers are generally insulated from the reality of economic dilemmas that easily touch small operators. I visited some farm retailers in Bute and was astonished to discover that one of them had to put off six people. This is what has happened in a small town like Bute. However, he said to me: `If you think that is bad, Neil, go around the corner and have a chat to my competitor'. I discovered that that man was the grandson of the originator of a business which normally from January to March would have sold six farm tractors and eight four-wheel drive utilities. But this year he has sold nothing. Why has the firm sold nothing? It is not because the season is bad or because the farmers are going bankrupt in the area but because the area is captured by pessimism. Farmers do not believe that there is a future in farming in one of the most reliable areas of my electorate. It is fair to say that if things are not beaut in Bute, they must be bad. Faced with the reality of high interest rates, there are farmers in sure areas of Australia who are no longer investing in farm equipment because they are pessimistic. Let me refer now not to a farm retailer but to a farmer at Melrose near Mount Remarkable in the north of my electorate. This farmer farms 1,200 acres. I guess that land is conservatively valued at $600 an acre. Because his son works with him, he in fact has a share farming operation. Two years ago this farmer chose to buy 580 acres from a neighbour at a cost of $320,000. The loan which was negotiated at an interest rate of 12.75 per cent was to cost $35,700 a year. With interest rates now at 20.6 per cent the loan is costing $57,680 a year to discharge. The loan has gone up by $1,832 a month. In the face of that sort of economic reality this good farmer who is energetic and who has a reliable labourer in the form of his son, faces foreclosure not because the seasons have been bad but because the policies of this Government of high interest rates make that an inevitable reality. If a moderate farmer in my electorate worth that sort of money does not appeal to the people on the other side of the House, let me refer to the plight of a grape grower in the Cadell irrigation area who came to Australia with his wife from Yugoslavia. As a new immigrant he went with friends into a fish and chip shop and then into a corner delicatessen. These people finally bought their own home in the city. They discovered that they could buy a property for $92,000 and have the joy of being, as it were, their own boss. They sold their home in the city and borrowed $32,000 to buy this property. In January 1984 they negotiated the loan, being encouraged by the promises of the Hawke Government. By January 1986 interest rates had gone from 12.75 per cent to 20.6 per cent. Their repayments rose by $209 a month. While we sit in air-conditioned comfort, this couple is currently harvesting a grape crop, unable to afford the labour that they need. Marty and Angelina are taking off the crop themselves in 40-degree heat because the policy of this Government has effectively forced them out of the dream that they hoped would be realised. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(7.40) —I want to talk briefly tonight in the five minutes allowed about the public housing issue and the fact that today and yesterday a number of people from my electorate and from other electorates throughout Australia came to Canberra. Honourable members will have seen some of those people in the House during those two days. I support the campaign being waged by the public housing groups that were here. I want to address my remarks tonight basically about what occurred at the new Parliament House display yesterday when 18 of those people were arrested. I find it most disappointing that these people were arrested for occupying that display because they were requesting a meeting with a Minister of my Government. I point out that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) had agreed to meet a delegation of these people but that it was the view of the people in the party, some 150, that he should see the lot. The people in charge of the display area called the Federal Police. I think that that is most unfortunate. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), talked about his electorate and the people suffering in his electorate. A number of the people who were here do not have a house to live in. Mr MacKellar —Because of the Government's policy. Mr HAND —I am glad that the honourable member interjected. It is not because of this Government's policy; it is because of the terrible mess that those opposite left this Government when we came to office. All of the problems associated with public housing are related to the shambles that those opposite left when we took office. They left a complete and utter shambles. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I tell honourable members on my left that previous speakers have been heard with courtesy and in silence. The honourable member for Melbourne will be heard in the same way. Mr HAND —Thank you, Madam Speaker, but they are such a pathetic lot that one hardly needs protection from them. The fact is that these people were occupying this building and the police were called. I saw this last night on the television and a number of my constituents rang and offered some advice on how they thought the police handled themselves. On my observation, I thought that it was most disappointing and that unnecessary force was used, particularly on the younger members of the party and some of the young women involved. Some of the activities of the police ought to be looked at in terms of the way they handled that particular exercise. When these people got to the police station they were released on $100 bail. This morning in the magistrate's court that bail was, I understand, increased by $200 and they were asked to put up a further $100 as surety-a total of $400. I find that very disappointing again. The maximum penalty for occupying Commonwealth property and for refusing to remove oneself is, I think, $250. I find it extraordinary for a magistrate to ask homeless people where they live and, when they say that they do not have a permanent address, for that to be regarded by the magistrate as an unsatisfactory situation. There were homeless people in my electorate under the previous Government and there are under my Government. I do not care who is in power; the fact is that there are homeless people in this society and that they have a right to come here and express their concerns, whether we are in government or those opposite are in government. I find it most disappointing-I am prepared to say it-that these people found themselves behind locked doors in a lock-up for expressing their concerns about the fact that they do not have adequate housing. I am speaking out on behalf of those people who came from my electorate. The last point I want to make is that three people from my electorate came to the front of Parliament House today. They found that they were barred because they were thought to be from the public housing group-not that they were, but they were thought to be from this group. They were stopped at the front door. That is not right. I speak out again on behalf of those people. I find that also very disappointing. Mr Hodgman —They came over in a car from the Soviet embassy. Dr WATSON(Forde)(7.45) —I rise to support my colleagues the honourable member for Flinders-- Mr Hand —I rise on a point of order. I ask that the interjection of the honourable member for Denison-I know I am wasting the time of the honourable member for Forde-be withdrawn. As I have said in this House before and as I say again, I have never been inside any embassy in this country in my life. I ask that that remark be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. Mr Hollis —And apologise. Madam SPEAKER —A withdrawal is an apology. Dr WATSON —I rise to support my colleagues the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). I can testify that the plight of the average Australian family extends to my electorate. I refer to a local newspaper of mine-not the Australian or the Australian Financial Review or something like that, but my local newspaper which had a headline a couple of weeks ago `Own Home Dream Now Nightmare- Battlers Go Under to Interest Rates'. My colleagues and this newspaper have identified the critical factors affecting small business and families in Australia-namely, increasing inflation and increasing real interest costs. These two economic conditions are totally the responsibility of this Labor Government and are the total responsibility of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Let us return for a moment to the last days of the coalition Government and examine the record on these two issues. We have heard the Treasurer and the Prime Minister-we heard it from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand)-saying that the economy was left in a mess by the Fraser-Anthony Government and that somehow only the Keating-Hawke duo saved Australia. Let us look at the record, for example, on inflation. The coalition left government with the inflation rate falling and an inflation rate which continued to fall in the early months of this Government because of the policies established under the Fraser Government. The facts are clear. The quarterly changes in inflation rates were 3.5 per cent in September 1982, 3.1 per cent in December 1982, 2.2 per cent by March 1983-election time-2.1 per cent by June 1983 and 1.6 per cent by September 1983. The underlying inflation rate at the time, as shown by the Treasurer's own Department in chart 4 of its February 1986 `Round-up of Economic Statistics' peaked in June 1982 at a little over 3 per cent and continued to fall until September 1984 to a little over 1 per cent. There are other statistics which show that inflation was falling. The quarterly increase in average weekly earnings slowed from 2.4 per cent in September 1982 to about 0.7 per cent by June 1983. Nominal and real labour costs in the non-farm sector were falling when the coalition left office. The wages pause had these positive effects and it is these effects which provided the basis for the job creation program of the Labor Government. Let us turn to interest costs. Every Australian who owns a home or is buying a car, refrigerator or television set or trying to run a small business knows all about interest rates. All Australians know that when the coalition left office at the end of February 1983 trading bank interest rates were 14 per cent per annum and falling, that building society interest rates were 14.5 per cent and falling and that savings bank interest rates were 12.5 per cent per annum and falling. They had been falling for six to 12 months before the coalition left office. What have we today? We have the highest nominal interest rates since 1902. We have the highest real interest rates since the Depression years of the early 1930s. We have double digit real interest rates-for the first time since 1933. We have the highest nominal interest rates in the Western world and these compare very unfavourably with our major trading partners. By March of this year we had savings bank interest rates of 13.5 per cent, building society interest rates of 15.5 per cent and trading bank interest rates of 19 per cent. This Government has the average Australian on the ropes. This Government, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister provided the good old one-two knockout punch. They drain the average Australian family and business with increasing inflation and increasing costs and then they knock them down to the floor with high interest rates. The average Australian family is calling for the referee to end the fight. The average Australian family and businessman wants this Government to get out of the economic ring. Tonight we have heard the cries from Bute in South Australia, from Hastings in Victoria, from the Western Plains of New South Wales and suburbs such as Acacia Ridge in Brisbane. This Government is squeezing the home buyer, destroying the farmer and ruining small business. Average Australians have had enough with this Government's utter indifference to their plight. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(7.50) —I draw the attention of the House to the case of Jennifer Sigaras, who is a constituent of mine. She is a tertiary education student who has been asked to repay $864.89 of her tertiary education allowance which she was paid last year. The facts of the case are as follows: Jennifer was completing her final year of a Bachelor of Education degree at the Victoria College Rusden Campus in 1984. During the second term Jennifer became ill. She eventually required a hospital operation. While she was able to continue with her other subjects she was unable to carry out her teaching rounds until the first part of the following year. This meant that in her final year her subject load fell below the required two-thirds workload required for qualification under the tertiary education allowance scheme. Jenny claimed that she had not in fact discontinued her course, but the Victoria College insisted on recording her as undertaking intermittent studies. However, she was informed by the student's record office that this was only a formality necessary for accurate college records. It should be noted that Jenny also receives a widow's pension. So it is possible that if her tertiary education allowance is adjusted she may be able to receive a compensatory adjustment on her pension, but that, of course, is not certain. However, she lost her right to a rent rebate on her Housing Commission home while she was receiving TEAS. Presumably, the rent rebate is not recoverable. In terms of the TEAS guidelines, Jenny has received an overpayment of her allowance during part of 1984 because she was recorded as an intermittent studies student by the Victoria College, despite her continuation of the non-teaching subjects during the third term. It must be appreciated that the withdrawal of the allowance rebates relates to the second term when Jenny was supposed to carry on her teaching rounds but was advised against taking on such duties by her doctor because of the stress involved on her health. Initially Jenny was asked to repay $2,259.11. I quote from a letter she received from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs: In accordance with Section 22 (4) of the Student Assistance Act, you are advised that the primary decision made in your case has been considered and subsequently upheld under Regulation 37 (1) on the following ground- You discontinued your course on June 18 1985. Once a student has officially discontinued from College payments cannot continue even though a student may have attended in some unofficial capacity. I am attaching a Statement to assist you should you wish to seek review of the decision by a Student Assistance Review Tribunal. A decision of a Student Assistance Review Tribunal may be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Both the Department and Tribunals in making their decisions are bound by the Act and its Regulations. . . . . Requests should normally be lodged within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter, but late requests may be considered. Subsequently, on appeal, the amount was reduced to the figure of $864.89 that I mentioned. Another letter was sent to Mrs Sigaras which said: This amount replaces the overpayment previously advised of $2259.11. I have advised this Department's Recoveries section of the amount of your outstanding 1984 overpayment. Please repay this amount . . . within 14 days to the Collector of Public Moneys, Department of Education, at the address given above. Payment can also be made at this Office in normal working hours. A receipt will not be issued unless requested. I should point out that all decisions must be made in accordance with the Student Assistance Act and Regulations. The Department enclosed a leaflet with that letter. It is interesting to note that under the eligibility requirements of TEAS set out in paragraphs D (e) and (v) on page 9 in the information for applicants booklet, if Jenny had failed third year she would have been eligible to apply for a concession and possibly repeat benefits the following year. One also should look at page 8 of the information booklet, which specifies that in the event of illness the Department of Education must be notified within 14 days. There is no doubt that the application of the TEAS regulations has been inflexible in the case of Jennifer Sigaras. I call on the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to re-examine the unfair and bureaucratic treatment of Jennifer Sigaras. Mr MILES(Braddon)(7.54) —We have heard several honourable members tonight speak about interest rates. I do not particularly want to speak about that topic, but a myth is being perpetrated by the Government on the Australian people. We should look at some of the figures over the years. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) like to go back and look at the past record. I thought I might do the same very briefly. If one looks at inflation under the coalition Government for the last 15 years, one will find that we come out ahead of Labor governments. If one looks at unemployment one will find that we come out ahead of Labor governments. In Budget deficits we come out ahead. Even in housing we come out ahead over that time. Over the last 15 years under Liberal governments, average new housing starts have been 132,000. Under Labor governments the average has been 141,000. They are the raw figures, but when we consider that the population of Australia has increased over that time we find that, on a standardised measure, the Liberals are just as good at managing housing for this nation as is the Australian Labor Party. Mr Hodgman —Better. Mr MILES —In fact, slightly better, as the honourable member for Denison says. I wish to speak tonight about an issue of particular concern to me, the welfare system, because I believe that it needs a total overhaul. In my electorate there are people on award wages, for example mill workers on $240 a week. The Federal pastoralist award in Australia at the moment is $238, yet the disposable income for a married man with two children is equivalent to just over $250. That is a problem for genuine hard-working people because the bread winner of the family-whether the wife or the father-out working for these wages is put in an invidious situation when he or she knows that the family would be better off if he or she went on the dole. Yet for such people to do so would be to lose their dignity, their sense of worth and any sense of purpose and contribution that they feel they should make to the nation. They try to hold their families together knowing that they are worse off working. The welfare system is creating more people who are poor and homeless. The President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria has said that under this Government there has been an increasing number of people on the poverty line and people who are homeless. Figures show that in 1974, 13 per cent of the nation was poor. In 1984, 25 per cent of the population was poor. The welfare system is creating poverty and not solving it. This nation must come to grips with our welfare system. It is totally unsatisfactory and is putting many hard-working families in an invidious situation. Of course, many others are benefitting from Government benefits. Many people are worse off by being in a family. Another illustration of people on the dole getting more benefits than those in the workforce is that of a family where a daughter received $150 a week and another group of people living together on the dole were living a much more pleasant lifestyle than she was able to do on $150. We have to look at this matter and bring about some changes, otherwise in the next few years we will find that a greater number of people are homeless and poor. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera. Dr Klugman to move- That this House- Noting that- (a) the 3 Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of nations from 1918 to 1940; (b) in 1940, as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany, the 3 States were incorporated into the USSR by military force and in a manner which violated elementary principles of freedom, democracy and justice; (c) like other democratic governments, Australia does not recognise `de jure' the incorporation of the Baltic States into the USSR; (d) under Soviet rule, well-documented violations of human rights have occurred and continue to occur in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; and (e) as a result of existing Soviet policies on indigenous languages and immigration, the very survival of the Baltic peoples as separate ethnic and cultural entities is endangered- (1) acknowledges the concern felt by the members of the Australian community over the situation in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, particularly the repression of individuals engaging in the non-violent expression of their ethnic and cultural identity and religious convictions; (2) commends the Government for its action in bringing this concern to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at the Commission's meetings in March 1985 and March 1986; (3) invites the Government, on its own initiative and in consultation with like-minded governments, to continue to formally raise the question of human rights in the Baltic States before appropriate international forums; (4) calls upon the Government of the USSR to end acts of repression against the Baltic people and to abide by the commitments which it has entered into under the various international covenants on human rights to which it is a signatory, and (5) requests the Speaker to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 March 1986: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following sections of Acts shall come into operation- Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985-Part II, Part III (other than sections 45, 63, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 116 and 131), Part IV, Part VI (other than section 162) and Part VII (other than sub-section 165 (2)-31 March 1986. Navigation Act 1912-Amendments of section 6 made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985-17 March 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 5, 6, 9.