Tuesday, 15 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-The Australian Government was advised by the United States Administration early this morning of immediately impending military action against Libya. President Reagan has since confirmed that the United States has taken military action against targets which it regards as supporting terrorism. The Australian Government has counselled restraint by both the United States and Libya in the course of the developing tensions between them. It deeply regrets that this conflict has taken place and urges both sides to suspend hostilities and engage in genuine efforts to bring about the peaceful resolution of their differences. This will mean that the United States terminate its military engagement against Libya. It also means, as an absolute essential, that Colonel Gaddafi terminate his Government's indiscriminate export of terrorist activity against civilians and civilian targets, especially United States civilians. The United States has said that its action was motivated not only by evidence of Libyian involvement in and direction of past terrorist activities but also by indications of Libyan planning being well advanced for further operations against American citizens in a number of countries. The United States' military action was explained to us not in terms of revenge or reprisals but in terms of demonstrating that terrorism will incur a significant cost. The Government accepts that there is a substantial body of evidence of Libyan involvement in and direction of international terrorism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and I have been privy to apparently compelling evidence of a direct line of command between Libya and the Berlin nightclub bombing. It is a matter of serious concern that following the Gulf of Sidra episode-where Libya attacked American forces exercising in international waters and the United States retaliated-Libya's policy of extreme hostility against the United States has continued. The Government, in response to a request from President Reagan in January, took a number of economic measures against Libya and reduced Libya's official representation in Australia as part of collective international measures to demonstrate to Libya that its behaviour in support of international terrorism is totally unacceptable to the international community. The Government has expressed a desire to work with Western and other governments for a concerted approach to dealing with international terrorism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is pursuing this matter with Western and other governments and will be reporting back to Cabinet on measures to promote a sustained long-term effort to defeat the threat of international terrorism. The Government is profoundly concerned that the situation has reached the point where Libyan action have driven the United States to regard it as essential that it take military action. Australia works persistently for a peaceful world. We are opposed to the use of violent means to resolve differences between nations, and in particular to the resort to terrorism. Terrorism recognises no rules and respects no moral standards. The victims are almost always innocent victims. Australians have already been victims of this sort of activity, and that is another reason why we are implacably opposed to this sort of behaviour. Let me sum up the Government's position: We wish to see restraint and an early end to hostilities. We hope that the conflict will not widen and escalate. We are fully conscious of the intractable and bitter conflicts of the Middle East, and the need for them to be resolved if the Middle East is to cease to be a source of violence and terrorism not only in that region but throughout the world. We look for such a resolution. But an essential requirement for ending the fundamental confrontation between Libya and the United States must be that Libya completely and convincingly disavows recourse to terrorism. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition thanks the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his statement of the Government's attitude towards the American military action against Libya. I have to say on behalf of the Opposition that we regret that the Government has felt itself unable to express support for the United States action. I would like to say on behalf of the Liberal and National parties that, regrettable though this chain of events and the development of circumstances may be, we express our support for the action of the United States as being a justifiable act of self-defence against the background of all the circumstances that have been so clearly demonstrated over the past months. The Prime Minister and his Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) apparently have irrefutable evidence of a link between the Libyans and certain terrorist acts including, in particular, the terrorist bombing attack on a discotheque in Germany a couple of weeks ago, yet this Government feels itself unable to express support for the action that has been taken by the United States. It ought to be remembered, in addressing this issue, that evidence has come to the notice of the United States Administration. Apparently, that is accepted by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. The House ought to recall the earlier attempts by the United States to bring about action designed to dissuade the Libyans from continuing their terrorist activities. I remind the House of the request for economic and other sanctions made by the United States to her allies in January this year-the House will be aware of the very lukewarm and inadequate response that was given-and I remind the House also of other attempts by the United States to bring about a change in the attitudes of the Libyans. When considering this matter we should all remember that no country and no citizens of any country are immune from terrorism and that, over the past 12 months, Australian citizens in other parts of the world have suffered at the hands of indiscriminate acts of terrorism. The basis of the United States action, which we believe is properly grounded in an understanding of the United Nations Charter, is an act of defence against a country which has palpably and clearly exported terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy for a considerable period. We trust that the action taken by the United States will demonstrate to Libya and to other countries that might export terrorism in an indiscriminate and cruel fashion that international terrorism cannot be tolerated by the civilised world. We must understand that terrorism will continue while safe havens for terrorists exist. Col- onel Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, is on record as supporting the activities of terrorist murderers. Libya has engaged in state-supported terrorism. This country has provided safe havens for members of Terrorism Incorporated and the acts of terrorism perpetrated by Gaddafi's Libya have been aimed both at his own people and at individual citizens of other countries-men, women and children-in an indiscriminate manner. Gaddafi has directed his aggression against Arab and African nations as well as European nations. As I mentioned a moment ago, last year a number of Australians were victims of terrorist murders, attacks and kidnaps. The United States Administration is now saying: `Thus far you have gone in your acts of terrorism but no further'. We on this side of the House believe that, in all the circumstances, regrettable though the developments may be, President Reagan deserves the support of all who are committed to a world free of terrorism and deserves the full support of the present Australian Government. We regret that the present Australian Government has felt itself unable to give that support and, like so many other significant foreign policy issues, finds itself impaled on an ideological fence on a matter of great significance as far as international affairs are concerned. So, I say to the Prime Minister and to the House that we regret very much the failure and the inability of the Hawke Government to give support to President Reagan, and I express on behalf of the Liberal and National parties understanding and support of the action properly and justifiably taken by the United States. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I ask him, as the Minister responsible for Commonwealth construction projects, what action he has taken so far and what action does he intend to take to exclude the Builders Labourers Federation from Commonwealth construction projects and to prevent that union from continuing to represent in any way builders labourers employed on Commonwealth construction projects. Mr WEST —Towards the end of last year, on the instruction of the Cabinet and the Government, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I, with our departments, had discussions with various organisations representing the industry and reached agreement on what has become known as the code of conduct; a form of compensation arrangements, and a procedure for declaring some companies to be of `special notoriety' if they continue to do business with the deregistered Builders Labourers Federation. That code of conduct has been in operation for the last few months. It has been used against several well known companies. Upon receiving their signatures on correspondence which indicated that they would comply with the code of conduct, those companies have been released from the designation of companies of special notoriety. Companies which have contracts or will be seeking contracts with the Department of Housing and Construction for the construction of Commonwealth projects, will be required to abide by the code of conduct in future, in the public sector and the private sector. This means that once the Builders Labourers Federation is deregistered they will not be allowed to recognise or do business with that union in its deregistered state, and if they do conduct business with that union in its deregistered state they will not be eligible for future Government contracts. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What does the Prime Minister hope to achieve during his forthcoming visit to Washington and Europe? Mr HAWKE —This visit comes at a very critical time for Australia's rural sector. The situation in the rural areas is such that extraordinary action is needed at this time. It is for that reason that I am setting aside other priorities to maximise Australian pressure for action in this area. A major factor contributing to the Australian rural crisis is the corruption of international markets. The massive agricultural export subsidies provided by the European Economic Community and others are well entrenched and it will take all of Australia's diplomatic capacity to bring about any substantial change in direction. All Australians, irrespective of party or of location, share in the prosperity of our rural sector. As I have had reason to say on many occasions, rural exports account for some 37 per cent of Australia's total exports which by any measure constitutes a vital contribution to our national well-being. My visit is, therefore, one of vital importance to all Australians. Following on the intensive efforts of both Mr Dawkins and Mr Kerin, I will seek to bring home to the most senior members of the United States Administration and Congress, and to European leaders, the need to get agricultural markets functioning efficiently. More specifically, in Washington I will seek assurances from that Government that, in the manner of implementing its farm legislation, Australia, as a friend and ally of the United States, should be insulated as much as possible from the direct effects of that legislation. I shall seek assurances that the United States agricultural export subsidy programs will be targeted at markets previously lost by the United States to other subsidisers and away from markets served by Australia as a non-subsidiser. While in Washington, I shall also seek international support for agriculture as a key item in the forthcoming round of multilateral trade negotiations. More specifically, we shall want to see established as an objective of the round the gradual phasing out of agricultural export subsidies. This interest in bringing about meaningful and purposeful multilateral negotiations of international agricultural trade rules will also be an important part of my discussions with the leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece and the European Commission. With them I shall also be pressing Australia's concerns about the damaging effects that the EC's common agricultural policy is having on Australian agriculture. The coincidence of my departure today and Mr Kerin's presentation of the Government's economic and rural policy package is significant. This Government is bringing a comprehensive approach to address the needs of the rural sector. We shall spare no effort to see that our efficient and competitive producers enjoy the returns that are their right. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Foreign Minister and I refer him to the Cabinet decision of 20 January not to impose economic sanctions on the Libyan Government as requested by the United States of America, and to the statement that `any further restriction on commercial activity with Libya is a matter for consultations with our friends'. In light of the Prime Minister's statement today, I ask the Foreign Minister: What consultations has the Government had, as the Prime Minister said, `to promote a sustained long term effort to defeat the threat of international terrorism'? With whom were these discussions? Have they included economic sanctions? Mr HAYDEN —The disadvantage that Australia labours under when it embarks upon a proposition that there should be economic sanctions against Libya is that the level of our trade with Libya is so extremely small that it is very difficult to demonstrate convincingly to, say, European countries that we are talking about a substantial sacrifice and therefore asking other countries to follow on equal terms the principle that we have put. That is the first thing that must be understood. Accordingly, in presenting the case, one approaches it certainly with confidence and firmness but with some circumspection in its presentation. This Government declared that there would be no new trade developments with Libya with the exception of food items. There are a number of obvious reasons for that and I would expect that the National Party of Australia would understand the manifest humanitarian motive behind that sort of decision. We have not found any great encouragement among European countries for the proposition that there should be economic sanctions against Libya. It may well be, in the light of the most recent developments, that they may be prepared to consider that. As for the detail of what the honourable member raises with me, I will have to resort to- Mr Sinclair —You have not done anything. Nothing has been done. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the National Party is proposing comprehensive economic sanctions, I take it? Mr Sinclair —I am interested in whether you have talked to anybody. Mr HAYDEN —Is the right honourable member proposing comprehensive economic sanctions? I am trying to work out whether the Leader of the National Party is proposing comprehensive economic sanctions or proposing economic sanctions with the Afghanistan exception. If the Leader of the National Party is proposing comprehensive economic sanctions I am-- Mr Sinclair —You have done nothing. All mumbo-jumbo. Talk about the MX missile; this is just as bad. Mr HAYDEN —I am greatly incited by the interjections of the Leader of the National Party because he refers to the lack of support for comprehensive economic sanctions as mumbo-jumbo. Therefore, I am quite happy, as an individual initiative, to move very purposefully behind the imposition of mumbo-jumbo sanctions because our total trade with Libya is, I think, of the order of $30m, almost all of which is in live sheep and processed sheep meat. I now have on record that the National Party wants Australia forthwith to move to the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions which will fall most severely on the rural sector of the Australian economy and, in particular, almost exclusively on Australia's sheep farmers in Western Australia. It is a very interesting proposition. Mr O'KEEFE —Is the Minister for Transport aware of a statement by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia at the Biloela Returned Services League Club on 4 April to the effect that rural Australians have been subject to severe cuts in funding programs such as roads, aerodromes and water resources? Will the Minister set the record straight on this claim and will he provide members of the Prime Minister's special country task force with the facts so that they too can expose these claims? Finally, will the Minister ask his colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to suggest to management committees of RSL clubs that they carefully vet the track record on truthfulness of National Party leaders who are invited to speak on these matters in their clubs? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member is setting a tall order asking me to vet the statements of members of the National Party. Able though this Government is, it is a little bit much to ask, particularly in relation to the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I am aware of his statements concerning roads and aero- dromes in rural Australia. All I can say is that it is the latest example of fabrication, nonsense and misrepresentation that we have come to expect from the National Party. The simple fact is that the National Party has lost touch with country Australia. What we are seeing in recent demonstrations and representations from country Australia is a recognition by the farm sector and by people in country Australia that the National Party is unable, unwilling and unconcerned about representing their needs. Let us first look at country roads. Under this Hawke Government-not under a National- Liberal Party Government-we have seen the greatest expenditure program ever on country roads, and that will continue. As I said the other day, some 75 per cent of the money which is spent on roads is spent in country Australia. We have set road funding aside on a trust fund basis and it is indexed over a period of five years to guarantee continuity and availability of funds for country councils particularly. That is something that previous Liberal-Country Party governments failed to do for 23-almost 30-years. This Government has done it, and it has been recognised by councils right around Australia. Let me again compare our policy with the policy of the National Party-Liberal Party Opposition. Its policy is to abolish specific purpose funding for roads for country councils. It is rejected by councils across Australia. It is rejected by country Australia. This Government recognises the fundamental importance of an adequate road system for the economic transport of goods and people in Australia, its importance for communications and the development of tourism in remote areas, and the fact that we need the road system to unite isolated communities. We are doing something about it. I turn to the expenditure we are providing in respect of country airports. Casino, Coffs Harbour, Townsville, Wagga, Coolangatta and Albury airports are all airports benefiting considerably from new terminal constructions and upgradings as a result of the efforts of this Government. We will continue down that path. I cannot be responsible for some of the wild utterances-which I mentioned earlier-of National Party members. As the latest evidence of their total failure in this area I have only to refer to my colleague sitting behind me, the Minister for Primary Industry-the greatest Minister for Primary Industry in this country's history. Opposition members interjecting- Mr PETER MORRIS —We welcome the agreement of the Opposition to that. This afternoon the Minister will be delivering a statement on the actions this Government will be taking to assist country Australia. We will be looking to the Opposition for support. The National Party has betrayed country Australia and that is something it will have to answer for. I conclude with these two remarks: First, I will make available to the Prime Minister's task force on rural Australia all of the information available on the tasks and the work we are doing and the expenditure we are providing for country Australia, particularly for airports and roads. Secondly, I will convey to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs the suggestion of the honourable member for Burke that Returned Services League club managements be advised to seek to vet the accuracy of statements by members of the National Party before they allow them to speak. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —Despite the valiant performance of our ex-servicemen, I believe that task is beyond the ability of even the RSL. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Farrer on a point of order. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, the Minister has now finished his question so I will not proceed, but he has no right to slight the RSL. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Barker, MP, Minister for Law and a former Speaker of the Singapore Parliament, and Mr Zulkifli, who are members of the Prime Ministerial delegation from Singapore. On behalf of the House I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask the Minister for Trade again the question I asked on 19 March, which did not receive an answer: Did Emanuel Klein accompany the Minister to the meeting in Rome on 22 October 1985, after which means were contrived prematurely to recall Thomas Walton, Australia's Senior Trade Commissioner and Consul-General in Milan? Mr Dawkins —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Hodgman —The millionaire tax cheat. Mr Dawkins —I require the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that remark. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Hodgman —I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I will not withdraw on that. It is the truth and I will not withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Hodgman —He is a millionaire tax cheat. I will not withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has asked for a withdrawal. The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw `millionaire'. Madam SPEAKER —You will withdraw unconditionally. Mr Hodgman —Out of deference to you, I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Let us get this clear. The Standing Orders state that you will withdraw unconditionally. Deference does not come into it. The honourable member will withdraw unconditionally. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw, out of deference to you, unconditionally. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member that, if he does not heed the Chair, I will name him. He will withdraw unconditionally. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw unconditionally. Madam SPEAKER —Has the Minister for Trade finished his point of order? Mr Dawkins —I was going to say that the question forms the subject of several questions on the Notice Paper. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the Minister for Trade that the question has been removed from the Notice Paper. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask the Minister particularly: Did Emanuel Klein accompany him to a meeting in Rome on 22 October 1985 after which means were contrived to prematurely recall Thomas Walton, Australia's Senior Trade Commissioner and Consul-General in Milan? Is Mr Klein now under final consideration for Mr Walton's position? Does the Minister, as reported in the Age of 20 March, support Mr Klein's taking up the Milan post? Has Mr Klein been offered this position? If so, what implications does this have for the independence of the Trade Commission which, rather than being used to advance Australia's best trading interests, is being used as a closet for the Government's political skeletons and cronies? Mr DAWKINS —The first thing that I want to say is that at the time the honourable member asked his many questions, which he placed on the Notice Paper, he issued a Press statement indicating that they were of the utmost importance and required answers. I intend to give those answers to the questions which were asked. The fact that the honourable member for Dawson has now decided that the questions which he placed on the Notice Paper with such ceremony a few weeks ago are now so lacking in importance that they can be withdrawn from the Notice Paper will not prevent my answering them. I have very much pleasure in responding to them and answering them in every exquisite detail, which will not be of any joy to Mr Walton or, indeed, to the honourable member for Dawson or those others who have taken up his chorus. Let me make one other point. At the time I was answering the other question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjected and asked whether I would provide him with the relevant documents which had been transmitted between me and the then element of the Department of Trade which now exists in the Australian Trade Commission. I indicated that I would do so. I provided the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with those papers- Mr N.A. Brown —Half of them, as you told me. Mr DAWKINS —I provided them on the clear undertaking- Mr N.A. Brown —You told me it was only half of them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to ignore the Standing Orders, any more than anyone else is. He will remain silent. Mr Sinclair —Would you buy a used car from this man? Mr DAWKINS —The Leader of the National Party will realise what an extraordinary remark this is about the trade in cars in relation to this particular issue, but that is a matter we will come to later. I provided as a matter of courtesy the papers that had flowed between me and the Department leading up to the time of the recall of Mr Walton from Milan. I want to make it perfectly clear that at no time was Mr Walton being sacked. He was being asked to continue his contract in Australia rather than Milan. Then, in response to a request from the honourable member for Dawson, who asked me whether I would provide to him on the same basis the material that I provided to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I provided information to the honourable member on that same basis. That is, I provided to the honourable member for Dawson the papers that I had provided to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the basis that they were for his eyes, that they were not to be copied, and that they were to be returned to me. This was the kind of courtesy I would have thought a Minister would normally extend to a shadow Minister. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I remind the House of standing order 303, which points out that members are outside the Standing Orders if they persistently and wilfully disregard the authority of the Chair. I suggest to honourable members that they think about that. Mr DAWKINS —I secured from the honourable member for Dawson an undertaking, which he freely gave, that he would not copy the documents I had provided to him because it is not normal practice to provide publicly documents which go to the personal details of employees of the Commonwealth. I did not think it was appropriate, therefore, to provide these papers and then publish them. So the honourable member for Dawson said that he would willingly abide by the conditions I had imposed in relation to allowing him to see those papers. It therefore came as a great surprise to me to find that the honourable member for Dawson is a totally dishonourable man. Mr Braithwaite —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I call for the withdrawal of that remark. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will withdraw. Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw, to go on to explain what I meant. Mr Howard —That is conditional. Mr DAWKINS —I withdraw unconditionally and will go on to say what I meant. Mr Sinclair —Withdraw unconditionally. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Had the Leader of the National Party been listening instead of speaking, he would have heard the Minister withdraw unconditionally. Mr DAWKINS —As soon as those papers had been returned to me, a Press statement was issued by the member for Dawson in which he decided to quote selectively from the papers I had provided to him. This was after he had given me a solemn undertaking not to copy the papers I had given to him and to return them to me. I must say that has gravely coloured the way in which I intend to handle this issue. I would have thought that, in the proper conduct of the affairs of this Parliament, and indeed the affairs of government, it was necessary or at least highly desirable that Ministers and shadow Ministers be able to establish a basis of operation on which at least a Minister felt able to trust a shadow Minister in these kinds of matters. So we now have this circumstance where these questions-and when I am talking about questions I am talking about four questions with some 80 sub-parts which go to the detail of this, and I would not begin to estimate how much taxpayers' money it has cost to provide the answers- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —It may be that it is a matter of no concern to the Opposition whether it continues to plunder the taxpayers' funds, but I take it as a very serious question. Indeed, because so much time and effort has been put into answering these questions, which were said at the time they were lodged to be of such monumental importance, the fact that the honourable member for Dawson has now decided to withdraw those questions will not prevent me from answering them. Therefore, as soon as I can after Question Time, I will bring into this House, table and maybe, with your permission, Madam Speaker, have incorporated in Hansard- Mr N.A. Brown —You cannot do that. Why not answer now? Mr DAWKINS —I intend to answer them in all their graphic detail. I will do so by presenting them to this House as soon as I can after Question Time. Mr Braithwaite —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the particular question I asked today on 19 March, and there was no answer. I have asked it again today and there is still no answer. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr BALDWIN —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the Government's attitude to calls from the Opposition and others for increased flexibility in the labour market? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of calls from members of the Opposition and others for increased flexibility in the wage system. Let me say a couple of things about that. It must be understood that we have had substantial wage flexibility at the aggregate wage level under the system that has been brought in by this Government. Through the operations of the wage indexation system the full impact of Medicare on the consumer price index was reflected in the wage outcome. The same can be said with the accord mark 2, which substantially adjusted aggregate wage policy to the devaluation, but of course it is also being said that we need more than that, that we need to have relative wage flexibility increased as well. Let me point out a couple of facts. Under the present system there is scope for differential wage increases in respect of anomalies and inequities under the work value principle and also, of course, part or complete incapacity to pay a national wage increase is being adopted in some industries, but there is also reason to believe that calls for increased flexibility of the wage system may be overstating considerably the importance of relative wage flexibility. In looking at the evidence for that, let me take the House to a few relevant points. The Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems said in its report that it did not believe that relativities were a sensitive signalling device. It said this was because wage relativities do not respond readily to changes in the underlying conditions of demand and supply, and that the allocation of labour is insensitive to change in relativities between the wage levels of major categories of labour. That was a fairly emphatic statement after a detailed investigation of this matter by a very important body, but at the international level the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has reached a similar conclusion. In its `Employment Outlook' for September 1985 the OECD said: While one would expect a flexible wage structure to aid labour market adjustment it is not clear how important this is in practice. Even in a situation of a relatively inflexible industrial wage structure labour mobility may occur smoothly on the basis of expected life-time earnings and availability of job opportunities. That was an important statement from the OECD, which also said, in particular reference to Australia: In countries pursuing consensus policies to achieve aggregate wage moderation care is also needed to ensure that attempts to substantially increase relative wage flexibility do not compromise this goal. That, of course, has been a major factor in this Government's consideration in pursuing the wage policy that it has; that is, we can see some advantages in increased wage flexibility, but not to the point where it would in any way endanger the macro wage outcome. A further area of relevance to this point is a survey which was conducted by the Business Council of Australia early this year. That survey of employers concluded: . . . the operation of the current wage fixing principles was not a major causal factor in the development of labour market skill shortages . . . In a letter to my Department the Business Council stated: Where shortages have emerged, wage flexibility and remuneration differentials are not a major contributing factor. Accordingly, there is little justification for `freeing-up' the system solely on the grounds of trying to alleviate shortages of labour in a relatively narrow range of specific occupations in particular areas. There are three very important areas of evidence that call for increased relative wage flexibility, which perhaps considerably overstate the importance which might be found in such a development. I agree that there are people with a different point of view and that some see advantages in pursuing the kind of policy that is proposed by the Opposition. In that respect, I notice that in the Australian of 5 April there was a quotation that indicated there was strong support for following the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia from a particular source. The article said, when talking about this person: He also said that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, now had a strong supporter for his proposed introduction of individual contracts between unions and employers. ``We might have something in common,'' he said. ``I think some of the Libs' concepts have got something going for them.'' The person who was being talked about and who made that remark was Mr Norm Gallagher, the Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation. With friends like that, who needs a Liberal wages policy? Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. After a meeting in Rome in October 1985 did he instruct the Senior Trade Commissioner and Consul-General in Milan, Thomas Walton, to destroy certain documents which the Minister described as- expletives deleted-`political dynamite'. If not, what did the Minister say to Mr Walton and was this part of the Minister's conspiracy against him? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Dawson will have cause to regret this course of action. The answers to the questions he has asked will not be given in a piecemeal way; they will be given in a full and complete way this afternoon. Mr Sinclair —You refuse to answer. Mr DAWKINS —In dealing with this matter I want to raise- Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to explain on what basis, within our Standing Orders, any Minister is able to say to this House that a question will not be answered in the manner that has just been used by the Minister. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party knows that there is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —By the way, the answers to the questions are no and no, but it does not matter as that will be made clear this afternoon. This question and other questions were placed on the Notice Paper, I think on 20 March-the date escapes me for the moment. Those questions are still listed on this morning's Notice Paper. Mr Sinclair —You were caught out, were you? Mr DAWKINS —Of course, it would be possible for anyone to be caught out. If the Opposition wants to sneak in surreptiously, let it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Members of the Opposition have asked me to take seriously their questions, which I have done and which they will see this afternoon I have taken very seriously. But then what they seek to do, having placed these detailed questions on the Notice Paper, which I have not sought in any way to avoid-indeed I have told- Mr Sinclair —Why can't you answer them? Mr DAWKINS —I have answered the questions: No and no-you bonehead. Madam Speaker, the point is-and this is really a matter for you to address-I would have thought that, just as questions are not deemed to be on the Notice Paper until they appear on the Notice Paper the next day, any attempt to withdraw them should similarly take effect from the date on which the withdrawal is recorded on the Notice Paper. This does not affect in any way my intention to answer them. As I said, I will provide those answers this afternoon. Mr MILDREN —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, follows the question asked by the honourable member for Dunkley. I draw the Prime Minister's attention to comments reported to have been made this day by that anti-farmer Premier of Queensland who criticised the Prime Minister for allegedly leaving for consultations with the United States of America and European Economic Community authorities before the Minister for Primary Industry has had the opportunity to bring down a package of assistance for primary industry in this House. I ask the Prime Minister, firstly, whether this claim by the Queensland Premier is accurate. Secondly, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he intends to address issues of significance to the primary industry sector in the consultations he will be having both in the United States and countries of the European Economic Community? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Ballarat for his very penetrating and relevant question. I can indicate to the House that, once again, the aging and increasingly irrelevant Premier of Queensland has got it wrong. I have delayed my departure to have the opportunity of being here while the Minister for Primary Industry delivers what I think all reasonable members of this House will come to agree is a brilliant, excellent and relevant statement. At least I can say this: If Sir Joh has not got it right, my friend Ian McLachlan has. He was on the Sunday program the other day and he referred to my impending visit overseas, and in regard to that visit he said: It is quite a separate thing. We are now going about trying to compete with monopolistic and quite unreal subsidies for agriculture in the rest of the world. That is an effort we should all be making together. I mean the Government, the Opposition, the Liberal Party. In fact, Mr Hunt and I have had one or two conversations on this and we believe that we should be, all of us, just as supportive to Mr Hawke when he goes away to these things as we were in Brussels last year. He concluded on a very telling note: I have spoken to Mr Hawke in the last couple of days and it does seem as though he has got it right. Mr McLachlan is correct: The Prime Minister has got it right, the Minister for Primary Industry has got it right and, increasingly, the people of rural Australia will see that we have got it right. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Speaker, during Question Time I answered a question from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I rather fear that Hansard might have got the figure I quoted wrong! Rather than have one too many zeroes on the end of the figure-Hansard probably has it down as about $300m-I point out that the figure is about $30m. In fact, it is $31m of exports to Libya, of which $25m is in live sheep. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on nursing homes and hostels, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Community Services. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, can I simply draw attention again to the increasing occurrence of the presentation of a report, together with a statement made in the Senate. We do not accept that that is an appropriate way of making statements in this House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. During Question Time remarks were made about the fact that certain questions are on notice. I wish to make it plain that the first question I asked was not on notice-that it was never taken off notice because it was never on. Secondly, I suggest, in relation to the manner in which the papers were given to me, that I undertook to do and did do everything the Minister and I had agreed to between ourselves, and it was the same basis on which they were given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The documents were not copied. They never left my room. Mr West —Who leaked them? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is not a matter of leaking. It is a matter of having a look at papers and being able to ascertain what is in them. I was able to remember quite clearly what was the import of those documents. Thirdly, the second question referred to a matter of comment in the Perth Western Mail on the weekend of 1-2 February, and a comment was made in connection with that. I suggest also that notice had been given to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins); it had been given for three weeks and one would expect him to be in a position to answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has finished his personal explanation. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —On the same matter, Madam Speaker- Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister seek to make a personal explanation? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. The facts are these, Madam Speaker: It is true that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) asked a question before he placed the series of questions on the Notice Paper. That is the question that he asked again today. What he overlooks- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister for Trade is not making a personal explanation. Mr DAWKINS —Yes, I am. Let me- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will need to show the Chair how he has been personally misrepresented. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Dawson has just said that the question he asked of me was not on notice and that therefore it was improper for me to refer to the fact that it had been. What I am saying is that, whilst he had asked that question before, subsequently he placed questions on the Notice Paper which covered the identical subject matter, which of course precluded his asking that question again while they were on the Notice Paper. Let me go to the second point- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is not showing how he has been personally misrepresented. Mr DAWKINS —He said that I was wrong in saying that he had copied the documents. In his Press statement that he issued after he returned them, there was a passage that appeared in quotation marks. That is a quote. That is a copy. Madam SPEAKER —Before I call the Minister for Primary Industry to make his statement, I advise that today both the statement by the Minister and the statement by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry will be broadcast on the third network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am sure that the House will be interested to hear that. Mr Sinclair-Madam Speaker, I just express thanks on behalf of so many people in the bush who otherwise would not be able to hear the proceedings of this House. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —by leave-Madam Speaker, I thank you for the arrangements made with Radio 3. I present for the information of honourable members the policy statement entitled `Economic and Rural Policy'. Copies are available to honourable members through the Bills and Papers Office. Previous Liberal-Country Party governments have responded to successive rural recessions with measures of a largely ad hoc nature. Some of these responses have been of assistance to the sector and have become part of the fabric of farm policy. Others have been ineffective for any purpose other than as a placebo or an ideological fix. They have not seriously addressed the problems; they have quickly disappeared as the crisis has passed-as did the beef incentive payment scheme, for example. The Hawke Government's approach is different. We have analysed the nature of current rural problems very carefully. We have not restricted ourselves to farm policy. We have also looked at economic and industry policies and at policies directed toward non-farm, rural and provincial Australia. My speech today is a summary of the comprehensive analysis of farm and rural policies as set out in the accompanying Government statement on economic and rural policy. We have found cases where our policies should be changed. But the broad thrust of our policies has emerged intact. Many of us in this House have had experience of previous farm crises. My own experience on a farm goes back to the 1950s and 1960s. Most of us can recall the late 1950s drought, wheat quotas, the wool crisis, the dairy crisis and beef crisis of the 1960s and 1970s and, of course, the 1982-83 drought. In times of crisis in rural and provincial Australia reaction by farmers is at first slow; institutions and governments also are slow to act. But once the seriousness of the situation is realised, and because personal stress brings out basic political attitudes, it is usual for there to be dissent, unrest and exploitation of these attitudes by the opportunists. Farmers are not whingers; they are gamblers. Farmers are realists; they rarely make extreme demands. Farmers feel they are victimised because they work in some isolation, in a setting where they cannot control the weather, the middlemen, the markets, the unions and the governments. We now have a situation, quite apart from political attitudes and exploitation, which is termed a so-called rural revolt. However, at the end of the day once the emotion has been expended, once the simple-minded simple solutions have been disproved, once the demagogues have been dismissed, I have always found that it has been necessary to analyse calmly what the problems are, and what can be done, in terms of overall economic and social policy. This statement is about reality, analysis and directions. The Place of Primary Production in Australian Society The first reality I want to identify clearly is the place of primary producers in particular, and country dwellers in general, in Australian society and the Australian economy. Some 36 per cent of Australians live and work outside our major capital cities. Some 7 per cent directly depend on the primary industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing for their livelihood. Thirty per cent of all Australia's small businesses are in primary production. Of course, farms and other small businesses are not in the same situation. Farmers compete on world markets, while most other small businesses complete against each other. Taking into account multiplier relationships, perhaps some 20 per cent of Australians owe their livelihood to primary production either directly or indirectly. With primary production providing some 37 per cent of Australia's exports, the standard of living of all Australians is affected by primary production. Rural Australia is an integral part of our history, our culture and our environment. No government can ignore this contribution of the rural sector to our society and our economy. This Government does not. What the Hawke Government does do-and this is different from our political opponents-is to recognise the true nature of this contribution. The only policies that work are those that contribute to the long term health of the sector in its market environment. Individuals in need are helped effectively only by measures that are properly targeted on those individuals. Not all country dwellers are farmers, nor do all country dwellers depend on primary production. But all country dwellers do have common problems of access to the range of public and other services that are taken for granted in the cities. It is for this reason that this Government does not confine its rural policies to farmers alone-we are in the business of addressing the problems of all Australians. Nature of the Current Rural Problem There can be no doubting the very substantial economic successes that the Hawke Labor Government has achieved. Australia's economic growth is the most rapid in the Western world. Our job creation record has greatly exceeded our targets. Only last week it was recorded that we have now created almost 620,000 new jobs. This outstanding record has reflected a number of factors, not the least being our successes in the areas of wages and fiscal and monetary policy. The fundamental problem is that, by and large, the rural sector has not shared in this economic success. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the real net value of rural production-that is, the Bureau's key indicator of farm income movements-is projected to fall by 21 per cent in 1985-86, with a further 21 per cent fall projected for 1986-87. Average farm cash operating surplus is projected to fall by 25 per cent in 1985-86 to $19,600, after fluctuating from $19,500 in 1982-83, the lowest in recent times, to $27,500 in 1983-84, the highest in recent times. Average farm incomes on family farms-which allows for depreciation-is projected to fall by 66 per cent. This does not, however, include imputed or off-farm income. Rural land prices are falling in some areas in an inevitable response to present lower returns and unrealistically high prices in the past. The proportion of farms assessed by the BAE as being `at risk', that is, having a negative cash margin and less than 70 per cent equity, is up from 5 per cent in 1984-85 to 7 per cent in 1985-86-12,000 farms. Employment growth in non-metropolitan areas was very close to that recorded in metropolitan areas. However, country areas generally have not experienced the same dramatic falls in unemployment as have the cities. I emphasise that there has still been a fall in the non-metropolitan unemployment rate. The major causes of the poorer country labour market performance have been more rapid population growth and stronger growth in female labour force participation. The gap between country and city female labour force participation rates has narrowed as country women have increasingly sought to take their rightful place in the community. The broad statistics on farm incomes I have cited so far need to be qualified in two major respects. The first is that there is substantial diversity across commodities, regions and individuals. It is both unreasonable and dishonest to infer that all farmers are in trouble. For example, the projected change in average farm cash operating surplus in 1985-86 ranges from a fall of 52 per cent for wheat and other crops to an increase of 10 per cent for beef farms. Of course, international price movements, seasonal conditions and overseas policies can always confound such estimates. Estimates are estimates. It is a simple fact that the current and prospective income problems are concentrated in certain commodities, such as wheat, sugar, dairy, rice and horticulture, and in certain areas, such as the eastern wheat belt of Western Australia and the Mallee districts of Victoria and South Australia. As a result, the falls in rural land prices have been by no means universal. Similarly, there has been a great deal of talk of farm debt problems, and this is undoubtedly the heart of the problem for many individuals. Nevertheless, according to BAE estimates for June 1985, some 28 per cent of farmers had no debt and a further 18 per cent of farmers had less than $20,000 debt. This is in contrast to the 12 per cent of farmers, including 25 per cent of wheat farmers, who had more than $150,000 in debt. This diversity shows that no grand fix-it solution can work. The problem needs to be addressed on an individual basis. The second qualification is that it is entirely wrong to compare the BAE's farm income estimates with estimates of average weekly earnings and so suggest some comparison with wage earners. The two sets of statistics are totally incompatible, as the BAE's farm income statistics make no allowance for either off-farm or imputed income. Whilst the statistics show that there are declining farm incomes, they do not, of themselves, demonstrate an individual welfare problem. This, too, needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, if the averages are low, there is a welfare problem at the bottom end. Consequently, proper policy settings cannot be directed at simply supplementing all farm incomes. Rather, they need to be directed at solving the underlying problems of primary production, transport, marketing and adjustment. Any special assistance needs to be carefully targetted on individuals. Causes of the Problem It is important for all of us, including both producers and governments, clearly to establish the causes of the current problems. The simple fact is that adverse world market trends are the reason for the failure of the farm sector to share fully in Australia's general economic growth. Average export returns for Australia's primary products have increased by only 5 per cent in the two years to 1985-86, despite a currency depreciation of the order of 25 per cent. This implies that average world prices for our exports have fallen by around 20 per cent. Had world prices not fallen, rural incomes would be over 50 per cent higher than is currently projected. Instead of a fall of over 30 per cent in the real net value of rural production over the past two years, we would be looking at an increase of 6 per cent. There is little prospect of immediate improvement. Projections for 1986-87 suggest little increase in world prices. It is simply not possible, in the face of these figures, to lay all the blame for the problem at the door of the Australian Government. Our overall economic policies cannot be blamed, as the rest of the economy has been doing very well. Tariff and other industry policy measures cannot be blamed. The direction of movements in protection has been generally downwards for some time, particularly through the measures being implemented by this Government. In any case, Australian agriculture adjusted to our historically high levels of protection decades ago. World prices are the problem. The Government does recognise that the impact of general economic policies can fall unevenly. At a time of low commodity prices, farmers are less able to withstand high interest rates. The problem is not high rural debt levels-the use of debt finance is less in the rural sector than in other sectors-nor is it high interest rates alone. The problem is the conjunction of high interest rates and low returns, exacerbated in some areas by a series of poor seasons. The `Grand Solutions' Rural populists have proposed alleged quick cures to these problems, including massive subsidisation of the farm sector. The rationale for these proposals is often the `tariff compensation' argument-that farmers lose from protection for manufacturing industry and so should be compensated. The logic behind this argument is extremely faulty. I repeat that Australian agriculture adjusted to our high protection levels decades ago, and recent movements in protection have been downwards. The protection of other industries is not the cause of the current problem. It is true that protection imposes a cost on all Australians, including farmers, and that farmers would particularly gain from a reduction in protection. In recognition of this, the Government is reducing protection levels. For instance, our decisions on the car industry are resulting in reductions in effective assistance of an estimated 10 to 15 per cent per year. Any so-called `compensation' during the time it takes for these measures to have their impact would make no economic sense and, in particular, would make no equity sense. People should be assisted according to need. The final problem with `tariff compensation' is that no-one has yet worked out a form of assistance that would not make other problems worse. For example, we could simply provide massive price support across all commodities. As European and North American experience shows, this simply does not work. Europe's agricultural subsidies have thrown a million people out of work, while the farm problem in the United States is much worse than in Australia, despite massive subsidisation. It is government cave-in to farmer demonstrations and revolt overseas that has accentuated the problem. In these countries, subsidies represent most, if not all, of the total level of farm income. Subsidies would provide a windfall gain for current producers, but would do nothing to prevent a recurrence of the problems in future as market fluctuations continued. By encouraging over-production, subsidies exacerbate the problems. By encouraging reliance on governmental support they reduce the dynamism and self-reliance that is the strength of Australian agriculture. The budgetary costs would also be enormous. An equivalent level of support to that provided in Europe and the United States could cost us anything up to $5,000m. We simply cannot afford it. Any attempt to do so would so destabilise the macro-economic environment that it could make farm sector problems worse. Finally, and most importantly, it would totally fail to target assistance on those most in need. Twenty-five per cent of Australia's farmers produce 60 per cent of the output, so it is obvious that this 25 per cent would get 60 per cent of the benefits of such an approach. Another popular but irrational form of assistance would be to provide massive general subsidies on farm interest rates. This, of course, would be even worse, as it would subsidise only one input-debt finance. It would distort the pattern of assistance across commodities, regions and individuals. To the extent that debt is not correlated with need, there would be perverse distributional consequences. Interestingly, the sector's total interest bill is less than the amount of `tariff compensation' that is often claimed. The Balderstone report in 1982 suggested that interest subsidies could be delivered through a loading on the tax deductibility of interest rates. This would be even more inequitable, giving greatest assistance to those with the highest incomes. The conservative parties' policy favourite of tax deductibility has never done a thing for farmers with low, or nil, taxable income. Another set of `grand solutions' relates to the current privatisation fad. The Government is reviewing the regulation that exists, implementing deregulatory measures where appropriate, and acting to improve the efficiency of public sector operations. This includes our reforms of statutory marketing authorities, the dairy industry and sugar industry restructuring. What counts is not necessarily ownership, but the quality of management and the incentives provided by the regulatory environment. These issues were ignored by previous governments for too long. We all know what would happen with wholesale privatisation. In the case of Telecom Australia, for example, the $490m provided in 1984-85 in cross-subsidisation of non-metropolitan rentals and local calls would be lost. I note that the dries in the Liberal Party have yet to direct their attention to the primary industry statutory marketing authorities. In short, the grand solutions provide no solution. The Government's Approach What the Government is doing is implementing those measures that do three things-strengthen the sector's long term competitiveness, assist those most in need, and complement our general social and economic policy approach. It is true that we have changed the worst examples of the National Party's legacy, but we have also improved those special programs that specifically benefit primary producers. I particularly refer to tax averaging, the diesel excise rebate and the various commodity underwriting arrangements. No other sector receives these benefits. Our policies need to be set against a background of understanding the market environment of the sector. Despite all the rhetoric, there often does not seem to be much understanding of the nature of markets or of the free enterprise system. Primary production is a form of business activity and therefore should be treated as a business activity. All markets involve risks, and all market participants should know the risks. Accordingly, farm policies need to be consistent with other economic and industry policies. However, the Government is prepared to give specific assistance to a single commodity where required, and the sugar industry is a good example. Last September, Cabinet took a decision to provide up to $150m in assistance to the sugar industry provided that the Queensland and New South Wales governments matched $1 for $2 price support, up to an agreed level, and that the industry agreed to a beneficial level of deregulation. While the New South Wales Government and industry agreed to the proposal, the recalcitrance of the Queensland Government, which legislatively controls the industry, has resulted in drawn out, inconclusive discussions, rather than effective negotiations on price support and deregulation. The Commonwealth Government has now decided that it will support sugar prices up to a maximum of $230, $225 and $220 per tonne for each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 as long as the cost of this support does not exceed $54m in Queensland. This offer is on the basis that the Queensland Government accepts that its offer of $27m interest cost on early season advances and Sugar Board stockholdings represents price support for the industry, thus meeting the Commonwealth's stipulation that State Government contribution for price support is provided on the basis of $1 for each $2 from the Commonwealth. The Government will also participate in the development of measures for farm and mill adjustment on the basis of discussions between the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries and myself on 14 March this year. It is proposed that a consultative body be established for the planning and implementation of regionally based industry adjustment, giving priority attention to the area affected by Cyclone Winifred, which includes Babinda mill. The decision by the Commonwealth to provide a $100m package for the sugar industry indicates its preparedness to assist specific industries in times of need so long as they are prepared to adjust to changing market and technological circumstances. The measures I shall announce are not some major change from the policy approach we have been following for the past three years. Rather, they are the natural development of that approach-an approach that recognises the central role of macro-economic policy; an approach that addresses the much needed and long awaited reforms of marketing institutions and systems; an approach that addresses all legitimate cost difficulties and the need to secure the long term resource base of the sector; and, most importantly, an approach that recognises the importance of all country dwellers, not just primary producers. Macro-economic Policy It is becoming increasingly recognised that the most important issues facing the rural sector relate to general economic policy. Specific commodity policy, while important, pales by comparison. We need to recognise, however, that primary production represents less than 10 per cent of economic activity in Australia, so there is no way we are going to redesign our entire economic policy for the sole benefit of that, or any other, sector. No sector, group or interest in our federal, pluralist, private enterprise society ever gets all it wants. Nevertheless, general economic and labour market success implies, by definition, the implementation of appropriate policies for the rural sector. Success means minimal inflation, strong economic growth, and international competitiveness. These are precisely the prerequisites for a healthy rural sector. We have had substantial success on all of these fronts. The BAE's projections are for rates of farm cost inflation of 8 per cent in 1985-86, reflecting the impact of the currency depreciation, and 3 per cent in 1986-87. This compares with the 11 per cent rate we inherited-3 per cent coming up, 11 per cent when we came to government. If the 11 per cent inflation rate had continued, the net value of rural production would have been some $1.5 billion lower by now. Instead of a fall of 30 per cent over the last two years, we would be looking at a fall of around 60 per cent. Our record of strong economic growth has brought benefits to all country dwellers through improved job opportunities and to primary producers through stronger domestic demand for their output. The floating of the currency has lifted our international competitiveness to record levels. Due to its export exposure, the farm sector is a major beneficiary of this. The BAE estimates that if the currency depreciation had not happened, the farm sector would have been around $1,000m worse off. If our predecessor's policy of maintaining an overvalued dollar had continued, the fall in the real net value of rural production would have been around 40 per cent in 1985-86, not 20 per cent. The Government's general economy policy stance is, of course, subject to continuing review. It has also been reviewed in the context of this statement. Monetary Policy Interest rates are the main cost concern of the rural sector at present. As I have pointed out, they are not of concern to all farmers, as many have little or no debt. They are of very great concern to many individuals. The story has been put around the bush that interest rates are high solely because we are artificially propping up the Australian dollar, and that a different policy stance could simply and quickly result in Australian interest rates falling to equal overseas rates with an equivalent depreciation of the currency. I can assure honourable members that things are not that simple. The fact is that the recent stance of monetary policy has been necessary to moderate domestic demand and restrain growth in the monetary aggregates, as well as provide some stability to the dollar. The cleanliness of our float is shown by the size of the depreciation we have been prepared to allow. While policy has been important, the increase in interest rates late last year was also due to other factors. These primarily related to lags in the operation of policy and the unexpected strength of domestic demand. At the same time, the balance of payments deficit was increasing and the impact of reduced public sector borrowing had not yet been felt. Many of these factors are turning around. Tight monetary policy has achieved its objectives, and the Government is now allowing market induced falls in interest rates to take their course. At the same time, the effects of the currency depreciation and reduced public sector borrowing are being felt. As a consequence, interest rates have already started to fall. For example, 90-day bill rates have fallen from 19.75 per cent to around 15 per cent, while 10-year bond rates are at the lowest level since 1980. The scene appears to be set for further falls. The rural sector wants interest rate reductions. It is getting them-not through an irresponsible monetary policy, but because of the success of our responsible but unpopular policy stance, a stance that was necessary to ensure that primary producers, and all Australians, reap the benefit of the currency depreciation. In the meantime, the Government recognises the difficulties that high interest rates are causing for a number of primary producers. While we cannot accept an across the board subsidy, we do support appropriate measures targeted to those most in need which have the effect of strengthening the sector in the long term. These are precisely the objectives of the revised rural adjustment scheme, which is an accepted form of assistance with a successfully functioning administrative operation. The Government will constantly liaise with the States' rural adjustment authorities to ensure there is as much flexibility as possible in administration. In order to enhance the ability of this scheme to achieve its objectives, the Government has decided to increase funding under part A of the scheme by $20m in 1986-87. This will channel additional funds of about $220m into the sector and represents a tenfold increase in loans supported under the scheme since 1982-83. We have also decided to conduct a program to ensure that primary producers are aware of the provisions of the scheme as it may affect them. In addition, the Government has reviewed the foreign investment guidelines relating to rural land. In the current economic climate, the restriction could be acting to exacerbate the declines in land prices that are occurring in some areas. We have decided, therefore, to lift the threshold above which foreign investment proposals are subject to approval from $1m to $3m. This effectively exempt the majority of rural properties, without allowing massive purchases to go unchecked. Fiscal Policy Agro-political spokesmen have, for some years, been very fond of calling for reduced public spending and borrowing. This is based on the links between spending, borrowing, taxation, interest rates, inflation and the exchange rate. There has always been an excessively ideological aspect to this position, but the Government recognises that these links do exist. As a result, the Government has committed itself to the trilogy, whereby the Budget deficit, Commonwealth spending and the burden of taxation should not increase as a share of gross domestic product over the life of the current Parliament. This is the most severe self-discipline ever imposed on any Australian government. A shift in the mix of economic policy, with fiscal policy playing a larger role to reduce the burden of monetary policy, is an important objective this year. This represents a necessary tightening of fiscal policy at a time of rising capital market demands. As such it will not exert a depressing influence on economic activity, but will leave room for private sector expansion. The rural sector will benefit, mainly because of the further easing of financial market and interest rate pressures to which such restraint contributes. This stance does imply, however, the closest scrutiny of all outlay items. No portfolio can be exempt from this, least of all my Department, relating as it does to a constituency that has always supported reduced expenditure. Nevertheless, in addition to the cost of the decisions I am announcing today, and because of the problems facing the rural sector, the Government has decided to give high priority to retaining those expenditure programs which affect the farm sector in the 1986-87 Budget. The benefits to primary producers could be much greater, and come on top of the benefits of the recent fuel price decisions. On the taxation side, the Government has announced a number of measures to improve the operation of the taxation system in terms of its impact on both economic activity and equity across individuals. This has centred on a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion opportunities-the $3,000m leakage allowed by our opponents in the past. Because of the substantial reductions in tax rates that are at the heart of this package, the farm sector will be a major beneficiary. Some of the decisions embodied in the tax package have been subject to criticism from rural spokesmen. By and large, I reject this criticism. The capital gains tax is necessary for the proper taxation of all forms of income. It has been designed carefully so as to effectively exempt the farm sector without creating a tax shelter. The great majority of rural properties will not be subject to the tax for generations, if ever. Similarly, the fringe benefits tax will bring in to account forms of income currently untaxed. The major criticism has focused on the proposal to quarantine farm income for taxation purposes. The Government has reviewed this matter and, in the light of some potential inequities, has decided not to proceed with this measure but to pursue an alternative approach. This represents a cost to revenue of $65m. The problem of tax abuse in the primary production area will now be addressed with more closely targeted remedies. As a first step, we have decided that breeding costs by registered stud breeders up to the time of birth of progeny are to be taken into account in the trading stock valuation for income tax purposes. The Government's motivation regarding quarantining was correct. Many of us will agree with the phrase `we are living beyond our means'. I would be happier with the phrase if it were not being uttered by the `haves' instead of the `have nots'. There is no reason why the community should allow tax shelters so that those with high incomes can make massive capital gains and push up the price of farm land in the process. If the claims of some of the critics of quarantining could be believed, we could expect a substantial recovery in land prices to result from this decision. Unfortunately, I do not expect this to be the case-the fundamental cause of the weakness in rural land prices is the low level of farm incomes. Wages Policy The central tenet of much rural criticism of the Government's economic policy relates to our wages policy. I want clearly to state here and now that, given the demonstrable success of the Government's wages policy, we are not about to change our basic direction. Our current centralised wages system is working, with wage inflation having fallen dramatically while still allowing real incomes to be maintained. As a result, the previous imbalance in factor shares has been corrected. This development has played a large part in the achievement of strong economic and employment growth. Critics of the system need to demonstrate that an alternative system could deliver more in terms of wage restraint and reduced industrial disputation. The facts of history are against them. The catchcry of many critics is the need for `flexibility' in wage setting. In most cases, they do not know what they are talking about. The accord has, for the first time, introduced macro-economic flexibility into wage setting in the form of wage restraint at a time of strong economic growth. Unlike our opponents, we do not need to resort to severe deflationary policies and consequent spiralling unemployment. This capacity for macro wage flexibility through the accord has already been demonstrated by the agreement to discount the current national wage case for the effects of the currency depreciation. The basis for much rural criticism of centralised wage fixation is a desire for `capacity to pay' on an industry basis to be the central issue in wage determination. What the critics are saying is that people in similar occupations should receive different remuneration. Why should this concept apply to employees and not any other input? I wonder whether it is also being suggested that equipment suppliers, banks, local stores and everyone else who supplies farmers should also charge farmers less than their other customers. How is the work force to be so browbeaten that it would accept such an inequity? Farm leaders appear to believe that their preferred system will result in depressed industries paying less in wages than they do now. Unfortunately for them, the lessons of history are different-`capacity to pay' would mean that the more profitable industries would pay more, with all other industries quickly experiencing a flow-on. Just look at the disastrous effects on the economy of the 1981-82 experiment with deregu- lation. Where is the economic logic in that? One could only imagine the effect on economic growth, on the incentive for entrepreneurial dynamism, of a system whereby every time a firm improved its productivity it was hit by a wage increase. How would an industry subject to wide fluctuations in its fortunes-such as the farm based industries-guarantee that it could reverse wage increases granted in upswings? The proposals are recipes for both an industrial relations and an economic disaster. This is not to say, however, that there would not be some advantages in achieving increased relative wage flexibility, but only insofar as it did not endanger the macro wage outcome. Achieving this balance will be a difficult and challenging task, but one which the Government will continue to pursue. Flexibility is available under the current system, as it is always open to an industry to argue its incapacity to pay national wage cases. The National Farmers Federation has taken advantage of this in the past. The Government has indicated that flexibility will also be available in the implementation of the superannuation reforms that are proposed to be paid from the current national productivity case. As previously announced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), rural workers must expect that they will receive the benefits of the new arrangements towards the end of the two-year phasing-in period. Naturally, this will not preclude discussions being undertaken beforehand to settle the detailed implementation of the schemes. Income Side Measures The rural debate in this country has become excessively focused on narrow-minded discussions of particular cost issues. As I shall outline in a moment, the Government's record on these issues is impressive, with substantial further gains in the pipeline. Nevertheless, as the major problem for the rural sector is declining receipts on world markets, this is the area that needs to be addressed first. TRADE POLICY World trade growth has underpinned the health of our rural sector in the post-war period. It is essential, and inevitable, that it do so again. We must make every endeavour to maximise both the growth in trade and our share of it. This requires concerted action on both the demand and supply side of international markets. On the supply side, the Government has been most active in expressing Australia's concerns on the international scene about the subsidisation practices of certain major agricultural producers. We have changed the abusive tactics used by our predecessors for more calmly reasoned argument, pointing out the adverse effects of these subsidisation practices on world markets, other countries including the Third World, and, indeed, on the subsidising countries themselves. We have had some successes in this regard. Last year we were able to negotiate the Andriessen Agreement with the European communities which protects our major Asian beef markets from the intrusion of subsidised European beef. This year, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) was able to achieve an important contribution in winning improvements to the United States Farm Act, as reflected by the United States congressional decision to reduce the size of its export subsidy program; it halved it. There is still a long way to go. Our determination to continue our efforts is demonstrated by the departure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) later today to further pursue these issues. The problem of agricultural production and export subsidies is directly related to the ineffectiveness of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade disciplines in respect of agriculture. The Government is giving priority and using every possible avenue to ensure that the problems are effectively addressed in the GATT and the new round of multilateral trade negotiations. We are particularly seeking to strengthen GATT rules so as to phase out direct export subsidies for agriculture and improve our access to markets. Simultaneously, the Government is pressing forward with bilateral trade arrangements. An important aim is to fully secure Australia's position in the growth markets of the Pacific Basin, North Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Trade agreements, with appropriate emphasis on agriculture, have been concluded with most countries of the Middle East, while an Agricultural co-operation agreement with China has been signed and an agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is at an advanced stage. A high level group of officials and the rural and exporting communities is being convened to develop a more comprehensive strategy for bilateral agricultural trade policy. The necessity for broad recovery in the world economy is also important in rejuvenating demand for agricultural imports in world trade. The Government is involved in discussions in a number of world fora which seek to promote policies designed to achieve the highest sustainable rate of output and employment growth. MARKETING ARRANGEMENTS Ever since becoming Minister three years ago, the reform of the various statutory marketing authorities has been one of my top priorities. Our marketing arrangements need to be as flexible and commercially oriented as possible if they are to achieve their objective of maximising returns to producers. I have therefore established a policy for statutory marketing authorities that removes unnecessary bureaucratic controls, and replaces the politically motivated appointments of our predecessors with a procedure that ensures that only the best people for the job are selected. It is impossible to estimate the gains from this policy. An improvement of even one per cent in our rural export returns still amounts to over $100m. To illustrate the magnitude of the potential benefits, our decision to allow the Australian Wheat Board to borrow overseas, alone, saved Australia's wheatgrowers some $50m in 1984-85. As a further step in improving marketing arrangements, we have decided on a comprehensive reform of marketing for the horticultural industry. Australia has performed poorly in both traditional and newer horticultural markets in recent years. This is partly due to a lack of co-ordination, infrastructure, research, and promotion. The Government has decided, therefore, to establish a Horticultural Marketing Corporation, together with complementary industry selection, policy and research organisations. Commonwealth support of $10m over five years will be made to these organisations. This includes $5.85m for the Corporation, $1.9m for the Policy Council, $1.25m for the Research Fund, and $1m for research on overseas quarantine barriers. In the 1985-86 Budget, the Government agreed to provide $7m over four years to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to encourage marketing innovation. We have also secured the basis of wool promotion expenditure, with a financial commitment of about $32m this financial year. The newly created Australian Trade Commission-Austrade-will enhance Australia's export performance, while its export, finance and insurance arm is providing extensive insurance support for Australia's rural exports. There is no question that agriculture needs greater sophistication in producing for market requirements and developing better marketing systems. In order to encourage change in these areas, the Government has agreed to the establishment of a special fund of $25m over five years for innovation in agricultural product development and marketing. No marketing measures are worth while if the incentives to producers, processors and exporters are all wrong. Such a situation currently prevails in the dairy industry through the export pooling arrangements. These arrangements encourage unprofitable exports at the expense of both producers and domestic consumers. Our recently announced reforms to the dairy marketing arrangements will correct this situation. Cost Side Measures As I pointed out earlier, our success in restraining inflation and hence farm cost increases has been of substantial benefit to rural producers, as well as to the economy as a whole. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics projects that the index of prices paid by farmers will increase by only 3 per cent in 1986-87, compared with 8 per cent in 1985-86 and the 11 per cent rate we inherited. This reflects generally lower inflation and, in particular, lower fuel prices and interest rates. Today's decisions will further reduce the rate of cost increases. This is a substantial achievement, one that deserves recognition by all those associated with rural communities. FUEL PRICES Fuel prices to primary producers have fallen significantly recently as a direct result of our decision in last year's Budget to fully rebate the excise for diesel off-road use by primary producers. This is in addition to the benefit to primary producers, like all users, from the recent petrol price reductions. These decisions are saving farmers over $300m per year. Primary producers are the only users in receipt of this full rebate. It has been suggested that we should extend the rebate to include petrol excise. This raises a number of difficulties with respect to cost, equity and administration. The Industries Assistance Commission is considering the fuel excise system. In considering its report, the Government does not envisage a reduction in the benefits to primary producers represented by the current diesel exemption. FERTILISERS The Government currently provides assistance to fertiliser consumption through subsidies costing some $55m annually. We have also provided a $10m subsidy so as to exempt farmers from the effects of anti-dumping action on certain fertiliser imports. Both these measures are currently subject to review. As recognised by the National Farmers Federation, fertiliser subsidisation is less than an ideal method of delivering assistance to primary producers. Nevertheless, in the light of current rural sector problems, the Government has decided that the overall cost of fertilisers to farmers will not increase as a result of any decisions which may flow from these reviews. TARIFFS AND INDUSTRY POLICY There has been increasing recognition by primary producers in recent years of the costs to them of tariffs and other forms of industry protection. As a result, farmers have come to realise that they have effectively been sold out over the years by political representatives who supported `protection all round'-that is, members of the National Party of Australia. There has, however, been a great deal of confusion about which forms of protection have been imposing these costs. Some believe that tariffs on farm inputs are the major cause of these costs. Others tend to ignore the costs arising from protection for some agricultural commodities. The fact is that anyone who is not receiving protection is paying for all forms of protection, either through higher prices for particular inputs or through a higher exchange rate and a higher overall domestic cost structure. The present Government is the first government in Australia's history to adopt a program of protection reductions on a long term sustainable basis. Our approach is to consider each industry's situation and difficulties, and implement a package of measures that reduce unwarranted assistance while strengthening the industry's long term competitive position and prospects. Such packages have been implemented for the steel and car industries in particular, along with some smaller industries. Rural industries cannot expect to be exempted. Our decisions on the dairy, tobacco and dried vine fruits industries include aspects that reduce the high levels of assistance these industries receive. In a number of cases, the forms of regulation and assistance provided to rural industries are perverse in their operation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the sugar industry, where the regulatory framework redistributes income within the industry resulting in higher costs to the industry as a whole. The Government will be continuing with its present approach when considering the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on industries currently under inquiry. These include textiles, clothing and footwear, pulp and paper, and the chemical and plastics industries. This will result in all major highly protected industries having been reviewed since we came to office. As a result, over time, decisions on these industries will further reduce reliance on high levels of protection and promote internationally competitive activities. The Government is confident that the continued application and extension of its policies towards manufacturing, with competing interests properly balanced and in full co-operation with affected parties, will progressively reduce the costs of protection imposed on the farm sector. The Government also carefully considers the forms of assistance, in order to minimise the impact on users. Accordingly, it was decided in last year's Budget to replace the tariff on grain harvesters with a bounty, so reducing farm costs by some $14m per year. The Government has now decided to take further action to reduce tariff-induced farm input costs. The tariffs on agricultural and horticultural machinery for soil preparation and cultivation will be replaced with a bounty providing equivalent assistance. The IAC will be requested to advise on the appropriate bounty level and arrangements. These will apply from today, cover existing stocks, and will cost an estimated $39m in the first year. In last year's Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated that the Government was disposed to replace tariffs on agricultural chemicals with bounties when considering the IAC report on the chemicals industry. A final decision will be made in the context of the IAC's final report. However, the Government is committed to reducing the price of these chemicals for farmers, either by bounties or the reduction of tariffs or a combination of the two. In the meantime, we have decided to remove immediately the 2 per cent revenue duty where it now applies to agricultural chemicals, at a cost to revenue of $0.4m in a full year. BOVINE AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGN The bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign-BTEC-is on target to meet its objective of national disease-free status by 1992, with the BTEC trust fund currently in a healthy state. As a result, the Government has decided to reduce the BTEC component of the livestock slaughter levy by $1, at a saving to the industry of its own money of about $6m next year. We have also decided to amend section 36AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act to permit profit from the sale or destruction of animals for BTEC purposes to be offset on a head per herd basis and to be assessed as income over 10 years. OFF-FARM COSTS The area of downstream costs has become increasingly contentious in recent years. The Government has already achieved substantial successes in restraining these costs. Our SMA reforms are improving the value for money primary producers receive from their marketing institutions. After many years, progress is finally being made in creating a single national inspection service. This, along with other measures, has resulted in substantial cost savings, estimated at some $16.8m per annum. I might point out that, had the National Party allowed changes in the Victorian Parliament, there would have been another $2.3m saving. A review of relevant legislation has identified some export controls on wheat products, timber and some livestock which can no longer be justified. Through the Business Regulation Review Unit in the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, a wide range of regulations are being reviewed. One of the priority areas of particular relevance to primary producers relates to food laws. Of course, the most important aspect of restraining off-farm cost increases has been our success in reducing overall inflation. Nevertheless, we recognise that there needs to be eternal vigilance in this area, and further measures are required. To this end, the Government has decided to offer to the States the establishment of a joint inquiry into the costs and efficiency of wheat transport and handling. The inquiry will take the form of a Commonwealth-State royal commission, to report within 12 months. The terms of reference will be developed between Commonwealth and State Ministers. In its consideration of the two task force reports on liner shipping and shore-based shipping costs, the Government will seek measures which continue to enable exporters to negotiate further commercial improvements in shipping arrangements. The liner shipping report calls for shipping arrangements to promote Australia's overall trading interests and advocates the maintenance of a competitive regime for liner shipping, with shipping lines free to operate commercially either within or outside conference arrangements and with minimal government intervention or regulation. Some rural lobby groups have suggested to me that they should receive funding from their industries through the Commonwealth's compulsory levy mechanisms. I cannot agree to this request, as I do not believe it is appropriate for the Commonwealth's ability to raise compulsory levies to be used for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Government does recognise that there is a need for improved consultative mechanisms with all those involved in the rural scene. We have decided, therefore, to offer to establish a Rural and Allied Industries Council involving the National Farmers' Federation, industry and trade union representation. The Council, modelled on the successful operation of the manufacturing industry councils, would provide a forum for regular consultation on all issues affecting the rural sector, including the review of conditions in the sector and the identification of major impediments to its development. RESOURCE BASE A major concern of the Government since taking office has been to secure the resource base of the sector. We have instituted the national soil conservation program, which is receiving $5.2m in Commonwealth funding in 1985-86. We have also broadened the scope of the tax concession available for soil conservation expenditure to include all land degradation expenditure. We have placed rural research funding on a sound long term basis, with a guaranteed Commonwealth matching contribution of up to 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production of each industry, and reformed the institutional arrangements. I have already announced improved research arrangements for the horticultural industry. With the agreement of the Agricultural Council, the National Drought Consultative Committee was formed in 1984. As a result, we now have a consistent set of drought policy measures. The principal drought measures are concessional finance for carry-on, restocking and restoration, and freight rebates for the transport of livestock, fodder and water. Our nation's most important resource is, and is increasingly, the talents, skills and dedication of our population. Understanding of advanced technology and of its application to rural industries is becoming essential for future success in primary production. Commercial management skills are also becoming of even greater significance. While many of the advances required of the rural education system are being met in varying degrees by individual educational and training institutions, we have decided to examine further the adequacy of rural educational and training services. The Government is also concerned at the relatively low level of participation by country youth in senior secondary and tertiary education. The Government has already acted to improve assistance for students and their educational opportunities in country areas. It will also be considering the scope for further action, in conjunction with the States, to increase educational participation. As a first step, the Department of Education has been allocated $388,000 to implement several initiatives to improve the access by rural people to information on Commonwealth education assistance schemes. Rural and Provincial Affairs As I acknowledged at the beginning of this statement, agricultural policy needs to be set in the context of the overall perspective of the needs of country dwellers. Not all country dwellers are farmers-in fact, most are not-and not all country dwellers are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. But all country dwellers, whether farmers or not, do have special needs and concerns that should be addressed by Government. Access to Services The Hawke Labor Government is the first government to take its responsibilities in this area seriously. Our Party platform commits us to ensuring that no disadvantage occurs to country dwellers, and to develop special institutions and programs where necessary. Both myself and my colleagues in relevant areas have been very active in precisely this direction. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris)-Australia's greatest Minister for Transport-has taken many initiatives to improve our transport system. Substantial gains have been made in the areas of improved operation of the Australian National Line and Australian National Railways, the shipping reviews to which I referred to earlier, and securing the funding of roads and road safety. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) has allocated substantial sums of money to airports in rural and provincial centres. The number of airports receiving development and maintenance grants has increased. Coupled with assistance to rural air services, this has meant a substantial improvement in the quality of services in rural Australia. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has presided over a massive expansion in services to rural areas. These include remote commercial television services, Aussat, and Telecom's rural and remote areas program. Incidentally, the last mentioned is still to be endorsed by our political opponents. Through these initiatives, we are now more than ever before one nation, with more equal access to each other. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has ensured that the community employment program is equitable in its treatment of non-metropolitan areas. Under this program, we have so far approved $422m in grants for projects located in non-metropolitan areas providing employment for almost 43,000 long term unemployed persons. The program of Commonwealth general purpose financial assistance for local government is particularly significant for rural councils as it contributes, on average, the equivalent of about one-third of their rate revenue. The level of program funding will be at least maintained in real terms in the coming two years. For the coming year, there will be no change in the basis of distribution of funds between councils. However, in subsequent years there will be a gradual change in favour of the most needy councils, including rural councils. The labour force participation of country women, including in agriculture, has been increasing for many years. This reflects both a greater equality of roles between the sexes and changed perceptions by rural women of the roles they have always undertaken. This development has gone largely unrecognised by many National Party and agro-politicians, who continue to cling to unrealistic attitudes on the role of women. We have decided to provide $100,000 for a rural women's access program to fund projects aimed at providing the access of all women in rural areas to services and employment. This is in addition to the national survey on the needs and priorities of rural women that is being undertaken in collaboration with the Country Women's Association. We have taken the opportunity of our review of rural policy to consider also some of the more general measures in this area. We have decided to establish a working group to advise on the most cost-effective means of providing greater access for rural areas to Commonwealth Government administration, including the delivery of cash payments and to information on the range of Government programs. Studies by the Department of Community Services on the delivery and effectiveness of its programs in remote areas have also been commissioned. We have decided to expedite negotiations with the States on improved travel arrangements under the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme. We have decided to allocate $0.5m in 1986-87 for fostering strategic plans for country centres and surrounding regions to provide a basis for future development by the private sector and State and local government. We have decided to further integrate rural policy development, particularly through the operation of the Rural and Provincial Affairs Unit in my Department. We have also decided to develop a research proposal on policies to increase the relevance and effectiveness in rural areas of housing policies and programs. Welfare Measures In the light of the current income difficulties, the Government has reviewed existing income security measures available to primary producers and has decided to make a number of improvements. Part C of the rural adjustment scheme provides household support for up to three years to producers considering leaving the industry. This has been successful in alleviating on-farm hardship. It has been decided to increase funding under Part C by $1.8m in 1986-87. This is an open-ended commitment, so it is anticipated that all applications for assistance will be met, including an expanded presence in those States currently under-utilising this aspect of the scheme. Various State and private initiatives already in existence have demonstrated that counselling services, particularly financial counselling services, for primary producers can have beneficial local and national economic effects through the encouragement of appropriate adjustment and to reduce personal and social stresses associated with poor financial circumstances. The Government has therefore decided to establish a rural counselling service, under which the Commonwealth is prepared to provide matching funds to help community groups employ a counsellor. The service is estimated to cost the Commonwealth $900,000 per year. One industry with special adjustment problems is the fishing industry which, in a number of cases, needs to reduce activity if fisheries are to be managed on a sustainable yield basis. Successful adjustment assistance has already been provided in respect of the northern prawn fisheries. We have decided to extend this assistance to all fisheries that are subject to effective management arrangements. Conclusion The cost of the initiatives I have announced is not large when compared with the total value of rural production. It is certainly not large when compared with the benefits to the sector of our general economic policies. However, these measures do represent all the remaining specific measures that can be taken for the rural sector. Any further expenditure at this time would not be justified either against the need for fiscal constraint or for equity reasons. The solution to the rural sector's problems must come through a recovery in international markets. We will continue to do our utmost in this area. In the meantime, the major rural sector concerns must be on appropriate macro-economic policy management. The Hawke Labor Government has demonstrated its credentials, with further substantial economic gains in prospect. I know today's statement will not satisfy everyone-nothing ever does. However, in many ways this is an historic statement. No government has ever presented such a comprehensive, wide-ranging policy review from the standpoint of the rural, or any other, sector. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KERIN —Mr Deputy Speaker, there are lots of interjections. I ask Opposition members, before they carry on with their braying like goats, to read the statement that I am tabling today. No government has ever been as active as we have been in promoting the revenue concerns of Australian agriculture. No government has given more recognition than we have to the needs of all residents of rural and provincial Australia. In the immediate future there will, of course, be further consideration of fiscal measures in the budgetary context, and continuing reviews of wages and monetary policy. The interests of the rural sector in particular, and country residents in general, will continue to be well to the fore in these deliberations. For the longer term, the Hawke Labor Government has established a return to strong economic growth in Australia. We all benefit from this, including the rural community. We will continue to frame our policies with this longer term perspective in mind. Those who seek spurious quick fixes will not find us receptive. Those who are interested in policies for the long term benefit of all Australians will find much to support in this statement, much to support in our overall economic and social strategies, much to be thankful for in our record, and much to look forward to in the future. I present the following paper: Economic and Rural Policy-Ministerial Statement, 15 April 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia speaking for a period not exceeding 61 minutes. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(4.20) —I have to say at the outset that this statement does not meet the expectations of the farmers. It is long in words and short in action. Financially, it is a mean and miserable attempt to redress the damage that the Government's policies have done to rural Australia. It is a package costing less than $110m, $35m of which is to be spread over 10 to 15 years. Yet we have seen Press leaks of the $200m package that was to go to the farm sector of Australia-a deliberate leak. I add that some of the media have had this statement since last Thursday, but the National Farmers Federation did not receive it until the lock-up. That is an incredible indictment of the way in which this Government is treating not only the farmers of Australia but also their representative organisation. This response to the $442m that the Government has ripped off the farm sector in the past three years is an outrage. But, worse still, the Government takes 43 pages to tell us that we can live with its monetary, interest rates, inflexible wages and fuel pricing policies. This statement made today, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is flying off to the United States of America this afternoon, is a public relations exercise of the worst type, and it will not wash. It is a bitter disappointment. It will be seen as such by the farmers of Australia. I believe the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) well knows this. Deep in his heart he knows that this will not quieten down the bush. The deep frustrations and agitations of the bush will continue. The prime reason for the failure of this paper is that it does not tackle the fundamental economic causes of the problems facing the rural sector, namely, budgetary, monetary, wages and industrial protection policies which are all adding millions of dollars to the farm costs structure. There is no denying that there are serious international trade problems, with depressed commodity prices and demand. But the international situation is not the major area of concern. Farmers have proved in the past that they can cope with those problems, providing the domestic policies contribute to their competitiveness. The root causes of today's malaise revolve around a whole range of domestic policy issues. Regrettably, this statement fails to address most of the really important ones. There are some positive features in the statement, but even they are not good enough. There is more money for farm and debt adjustment to assist those farmers with some hope of recovery, but who could not be classified as commercially viable by traditional lending institutions. But only a total of $22m has been allocated to parts A and C of the rural adjustment scheme. There are improved welfare benefits for those who have no hope of survival. There is some small relief from the tariff costs on some inputs such as farm equipment for soil cultivation and preparation, and a miserable $358,000 relief on agricultural chemicals. The National Farmers Federation and every organisation that represents the farm sector has pointed to the need to take off the Government charges, the taxes on the inputs that the farmers have to use. The farmers have not asked for subsidies; they have asked the Government to take its hands out of its pockets, to get off their backs. Obviously the Government is not prepared to do this. It has taken the first joint of its little finger out of its pocket. There are to be changes to the most discriminatory tax ever dreamed up-the quarantining of farm losses from the other income for tax purposes. We are now threatened with `alternative targeted remedies'. As a first step the Minister tells us: That the question of the appropriate rate of write off of capital expenditures- may the farmers of Australia listen to this- operating expenses and payment of annual expenses so that they more closely equate with the economic lives of the assets. Obviously we are about to see a change in the write-off depreciation rates. We will lose the quarantining of farm losses. If honourable members look at the booklet they will see the range of things that we are likely to see come up when the tax package hits this place. We have been waiting for that for months, as have accountants, farmers and businessmen. What has happened to that tax package? It is a rubbishy tax package and it should have been buried the day after it was produced. The Government is too frightened to bring it into this place because it knows that it could well be an issue that will result in the Senate bringing it to the test and facing the people. The Government would have to face the people on a tax package that was an absolute camel. It was put together by delegates to a tax summit after days and days of negotiation. In the time that has elapsed since the tax package was announced, we have seen land values in this country plummet, and we have seen the security of farmers-the equity against which they have borrowed-diminish. Would any home owner in this place or in Australia like to see the capital value of his home, against which he has taken a mortgage or borrowed, diminish? There would not be one, but this does not matter for the farmer. He is out in the sticks and presumably he can take it. Farmers will not take it any more; they have taken it long enough and they have had a gutful. We wait with bated breath the alternative target remedies. The Minister claims that the removal of the quarantining of farm losses will cost the Government $60m. How can he make such a claim when legislation has not even been introduced? The statement offers no real hope for the long term viability of Australian farmers and their families. It does not address the fundamental weaknesses of the Australian economy as far as they affect the export sector. In order to come to grips with the problems facing agriculture, let us analyse the basic causes of the current crisis. Firstly, the overall economic policies of government-its inflexible wages, monetary, budgetary and protection policies and its taxes on input costs such as fuel costs-have forced up farm costs and rendered most farms unprofitable. Secondly, the removal from the primary industry portfolio of $442m in Labor's Budgets and mini-Budgets since 1983 has added to the cost burden of farmers. Thirdly, I mention the declining world commodity prices due to Europe's common agricultural policy, the increasing self-sufficiency in food production world-wide and more recently the United States farm Bill. I want to concentrate on those domestic policy issues over which the Government has direct control. However, before doing so, before the Prime Minister departs from Australia today I wish him well in his endeavours to minimise the damaging effects of Europe's common agricultural policy and the United States Farm Bill on world commodity prices and world trade in agriculture. But it is far more difficult to convince other nations to change their policies to advantage our farmers than it is to change our policies. In a sense it is extraordinary that the launching pad for the Prime Minister's overseas visit is this statement today. What arguing leverage will he have with President Reagan or the European Commission when he finds-as he surely will-that the farmers of this country are not prepared to accept the statement, which does not even go to the fringe of their problem. It is an incredible farce. It is far more difficult to convince other nations of the economic courses they should follow than it is for us to change our policies. Our best prospect on the international scene will be to secure the support of the United States in having agriculture included on the agenda in the forthcoming round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade discussions and bound within the terms of GATT. There is, of course, a necessity to bring pressure to bear on the United States to remove the direct and damaging impact of the United States farm Bill on our cotton industry, beef industry and other exposed industries and the indirect effects on our cereal, coarse grain and oilseed industries. I mention the cotton industry because it has a significant problem and it is probably different from any other industry. The cotton industry is now facing competition from an industry which, under the farm Bill, will receive support in the form of a guaranteed price to the grower. However, under that arrangement the merchants of the US will also receive a guarantee which will have no floor or bottom. In other words, a merchant will be able to sell below the guaranteed price of US44c a pound; he would be able to sell for US25c and the Government or the Administration will make up the difference under the US farm Bill. Already we have seen cotton prices fall from about $490 a bale to $265. The latest prices indicate that the figure could go as low as $240 a bale. This would decimate the Australian cotton industry. Let us hope that a strong case is made to relieve the industry of that sort of predatory action. One only hopes that the eleventh hour visit of the Prime Minister to the United States and Europe is not too late. One hopes that the exercise is more than a public relations exercise and that meaningful results will be achieved. Leaving aside the international scene, let me return to domestic macroeconomic policy issues. The Minister in his statement brushed aside this matter. He said: There is no way we are going to redesign our entire economic policy for the sole benefit of that, or any other, sector. That is what he said and I will repeat it because everybody who is interested in the farm sector and the small businesses in country towns and provincial cities need to understand what the Minister said and what he meant. This is what he said: There is no way we are going to redesign our entire economic policy for the sole benefit of that, or any other, sector. Is that the sort of recognition that farmers earning one-fifth of average weekly earnings should have expected? Do honourable members think that they have wasted their time in assembling in their thousands outside Parliament House? Do honourable members think that they have wasted their time in attending rallies at Wagga, Dubbo and at places all around the countryside-you name it-where they have been trying to get their message across? Mr Hodgman —They have been betrayed. Mr HUNT —They have been betrayed, says the honourable gentleman. I think the Minister's words bear repeating: There is no way we are going to redesign our entire economic policy for the sole benefit of that, or any other, sector. He therefore ignores the importance of the need for a comprehensive environment for our export industries. More than that, he has condemned our rural and export industries to a continuing and deepening crisis. Failure to address these matters properly is the fundamental reason why this Government statement today is simply not good enough. There is to be no change to the accord, to high interest rates, to rising wages, to our inflation levels-which are now more than double those of our competitors-and to increasing costs and charges. Nothing has been done in this statement to help our agricultural sector-our main export earner-to become more competitive in the world market-place, which is corrupted, I might say, by the export subsidy policies of Europe and, to a certain extent, the United States. The vital ingredients have been bypassed. That saddens me-it angers me-for the sake of our farmers, for the sake of all Australians. We are dealing with Australian living standards. Agriculture is the centrepiece of our national export strategy. The Minister almost went as far as to say that in his statement. There is an acknowledgment that agriculture is fundamental to the welfare of every Australian, of every small business, particularly in our rural areas. Traditionally farmers produce about 40 per cent of our export earnings, selling 70 per cent of their output overseas. Of our 170,000 farms, 93 per cent are owned by Australian individuals or family partnerships. It must be stressed that they are the least subsidised, least protected farmers in the Western world, producing on the cheapest land. Yet the return per capita this year is estimated to be minus 6 per cent. The Government says `We are not going to change our policies for anything, not even for the sector we rely upon so much, to try to improve our balance of trade figures', which are plummeting at an alarming rate. Whilst agricultural policy must be an integral part of our national economic policy objectives, there are clear policy goals that should be fundamental to restoring the capacity of farmers to continue their important role in earning foreign exchange. These objectives should be: To establish a competitive economic environment that will encourage investment, research and innovation in farming; to stop the transfer of resources away from our agricultural industries by direct and insidious indirect means such as tariff protection; to encourage the development of an agricultural sector producing goods more attuned to the demands of the market-place; to increase farm profitability by producing high quality goods at competitive prices; to improve our reputation as a reliable supplier; to encourage conservation of the agricultural environment so that production potential is protected and enhanced; and to contribute to our national economic and social objectives, with equity between those living in rural and urban communities. Labor has failed the farmers miserably on two significant counts. First, in satisfying the demands of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it has adopted adverse macro-economic policies which are reducing our competitiveness on difficult export markets. In manipulating its monetary and exchange rate policies, it has forced up interest rates to record levels to protect its wages policy and the accord with the ACTU. Secondly, it has savaged the resources of farmers with systematic discrimination, extracting $442m-- Mr Hand —Are you suggesting wage cuts for the workers? Mr HUNT —The honourable member ought to protest to his own colleagues. The farmers are workers. The farmers are among the hardest workers in this country. The Government has extracted $442m in its three Budgets and two mini-Budgets. This $442m-never let us forget the figure-contrasts with an annual outlay of around $330m to the primary industry portfolio. Honourable members should not think that there has been any great handout to the Australian farmer. The budgetary allocation for primary industry represents less than 0.5 per cent of the total budgetary outlay in this country. This statement has failed to alter the economic directions which are diverting resources away from the farm industries into other sectors which are less capable of earning the export income so badly needed. Clearly the Government is not prepared to reduce its Budget deficits or to adopt a more flexible wages policy-both vitally relevant to the accelerating fall in the agricultural terms of trade. Even that great trade union leader, Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, has urged on the Government this necessity. The statement does not address the need to adopt monetary policies which do not force up interest rates to intolerable levels to prop up the basic weakness of the Australian dollar. The Minister virtually denied that the Government is not propping up the dollar, yet he says in his statement: The cleanliness of our float is shown by the size of the depreciation we have been prepared to allow. If ever there were an admission, that is one. The statement is terribly contradictory and, probably, necessarily so. The Government should not think it is going to pull the wool over the eyes of the average farmer. I quote the Minister's statement again, because they are great quotes: The cleanliness of our float is shown by the size of the depreciation we have been prepared to allow. The Minister now claims: The Government is now allowing market induced falls in interest rates. I wonder whether the fall in world oil prices had anything to do with it. It did in every other country. One would assume that it is a rub-off; but the Minister assumes credit, saying that the Government is now allowing market induced falls in interest rates. Whilst giving some minimal relief of the tariffs on selected farm equipment, the statement does not acknowledge the urgent need to reduce tariff protection generally on a steady, predictable timetable to relieve farmers of the indirect average cost burden of $9,000 per farm per annum. This is the Government's figuring, not the belief of the National Farmers Federation. The average effective level of assistance for manufacturing is 26 per cent and about 10 per cent for agriculture. There could be no better opportunity to reduce tariff protection now that the 30 per cent trade-weighted depreciation of the dollar has added substantially to industry protection. The Government does not acknowledge the cost to farmers of the manipulation of the exchange rate, estimated to be costing farmers $750m per annum from artificially high interest rates alone. It does not attempt to pass on to the farmers, or indeed to the community as a whole, the full benefit of the collapse in world oil prices. The full restoration of the fuel excise rebate on distillate used on farm, which Labor removed-we should remember that Labor removed it at a cost of $50m to the farming industry and is now claiming credit for putting it back on-is not good enough. On average, 40 per cent of fuel used on farm is petrol, but the Government has said that it cannot do anything about this because it raises a number of difficulties, one of them being financial. It is too costly for the Government, but not too costly for the farmers. The benefits of lower world oil prices are denied to transport operators and those who service farm needs. Instead of extending the benefit of lower fuel prices to the community, the Government has increased excise by 157 per cent since it came to office. The Government has increased excise from 7.155c a litre to 18.3888c a litre. Honourable members should remember that the excise is indexed to the rate of inflation. The higher the inflation rate, the more the index rips off. In other words, the Government has intercepted the full benefit of lower world oil prices with a massive hike in fuel excise imposed upon farm carriers and contractors which, of course, is passed on to the farmers. How can we compete with other agriculture producing nations when we are slugged in this manner? It is an outrage that whilst we were exposed to fuel prices when they were high, we are now denied the benefit when they are low. The Government stands condemned for its fuel robbery and deceit. The Government has not restored the fuel freight equalisation scheme for those who lost that equitable arrangement. It has not removed the sales tax on lubricants used on farms and in fisheries. Of course, it imposed it. It has maintained its sneaky fuel excise indexed to the inflation rate that its own policies are generating. The time has come for governments in Australia to progressively remove the fuel tax burden. I say that because it is an essential ingredient in most export producing industries. It is handicapping the nation's competitiveness on export markets. The Government has not come to grips with these issues. As a result, there can be no lasting and meaningful improvement in the domestic environment for agriculture. Gone are the days when farmers were capable of carrying direct and indirect burdens of various forms of indirect taxation such as excise on imports and certain types of taxation, tariff protection and inflexible wage policies which are constantly eroding our competitiveness as a nation. Since it is neither feasible nor desirable to out- subsidise our major competitors with their massive industrial bases, we must rely on less interventionary and more flexible market-oriented policies to improve our export competitiveness. The Minister was right when he said that we cannot match the subsidy policies of Europe. To try to match them, he estimates, we would have to find $5,000m in a year. Nobody should expect the nation to provide that sum. But no longer can Australians afford the consequences of governments pursuing macro-economic policies which transfer resources from the export industries to the rest of the community. The consequences are there for all to see in Argentina and, to a lesser extent, in Canada. I commend a book for all people to read. It is called Australia and Argentina: On Parallel Paths and was written by Tim Duncan and John Fogarty. It should be compulsory reading for every politician and public servant who has an economic responsibility because there is not the slightest doubt that the book warns policy developers and administrators of the very policies that have destroyed Argentina's economy, placing it in a position where it does not even provide an old age pension. Argentina had one of the strongest economies in the world and the highest standard of living in 1945. What has happened to it today? Argentina cannot even afford to pay the pension because the populist Peron Government bled the export industries dry to satisfy the screaming masses in Buenos Aires. Australia is on a parallel path. That path needs to be stopped or our children will suffer consequences similar to those in Argentina. Tariffs, excise and other government imposts on farm inputs have eroded farm profitability. They are part of a network of measures which are unfairly diverting resources away from agriculture to other sectors of our economy. The failure to give meaningful indications of major economic policy changes in these vital areas is the most significant failure in the Government's statement. Honourable members opposite should have heeded the advice of the BAE Director, Dr Andy Stoeckel, at this year's Agricultural Outlook Conference. He said: Macroeconomic policies can, at least in the short term, affect variables such as the exchange rate, inflation and interest rates, which have a direct bearing on both the total availability of resources to the export sector and the efficiency with which those resources can be used by them. The stark facts are that the drop in Australia's trade-weighted exchange rate, on a comparison of 13 major trading nations, is the second worst, ahead of only the United States which earlier had a vastly over-valued currency. It was by deliberate design that the United States brought down its currency after a mini-summit conference. Regarding inflation, based on consumer prices, Australia is among the worst three of the 13 countries. The Australian rate of 8.2 per cent compares with 3.9 per cent in the United States, 1.4 per cent in Japan and 0.7 per cent in West Germany. On average, our prime lending interest rate stands at 19.6 per cent, far and away the worst of any of those countries. It is 9 per cent in the United States, 7.5 per cent in West Germany-in fact, I believe that it is lower now; it is closer to 5 per cent, although I cannot get confirmation of that-and less than 5 per cent in Japan. The Government's macro-economic mix, structured on the accord, has not been conducive to a competitive economy such as that sought by the people involved in the export industries. Nothing in this statement will alter that problem. These band-aid policy changes are not good enough. Dr Stoeckel said at the Outlook Conference that the financial markets now appear to insist on an interest rate premium in Australia before they will lend to us. He concluded: This seems to reflect a perception in those markets about the future course of our economic performance and the effectiveness of macro-economic policy. The crux of all this lies in the ability of wages to be discounted to maintain the real effects of any nominal currency devaluation. Twelve months after the major collapse of the Australian dollar we still do not have discounting in this country. Dr Stoeckel has done his best as the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to warn the Government of the course to follow. Sadly, it will not take his advice. Our trade-weighted exchange rate plunged 30 per cent last year, but still we have no discounting. Our honeymoon is rapidly coming to an end. We should not be mistaken about what is going on. The Prime Minister's cause is the ACTU. He is its man. Simon Crean could be likened to the head of state and the accord has become its constitution. What the Government is all about, which people should acknowledge, is laboriously and faithfully pursuing that course. Let us not misunderstand the purpose, intention, aim or objective. It is there for all to see and comprehend. The Government's macro-economic mix of its inflexible wages system, the propping up of the Australian dollar and crushing interest rates is not conducive to export competitiveness. The words of the Westpac Banking Corporation's John Chatterton to the Outlook Conference this year also bear quoting. On interest rates, he said: Undoubtedly, the Prices and Incomes Accord must shoulder much of the blame. Institutionalised wage indexation is a peculiar Australian foible. Even when partially discounted the Australian labour force pay increases in 1986 will be well above those in the industrial world. Way down in this part of the world we are adopting a system that strikes at the very ability of this nation to compete on international markets. Surely we have to compete. We depend so much on exports to maintain our standard of living. Nobody will buy our products if they are not of good quality, if the unions delay them at the port or if they are more expensive. We are in a very competitive world and we need to recognise that. The Minister has admitted that there would be some advantages in `achieving increased wage flexibility' but nowhere is there any commitment to such a policy. Clearly, the Government will not change its wages policy. The proposed deferral of the so-called productivity superannuation deal with the ACTU is just not good enough. The farmers, with their depressed incomes, cannot afford such a union dominated scheme designed to introduce compulsory unionism by stealth. That is what it is all about, because unless a person is a member of a union-most farm employees are not members of unions-there is no benefit. Let us hope that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission listens to the arguments for and against. Until there is a renegotiation of the accord there can be no substantial economic recovery in this nation. On the basis that labour makes up around 60 per cent of off-farm costs, overall labour costs represent up to 30 per cent of gross farm returns. It is essential that there be some sort of flexibility in the system. The master plan devised by the faceless men of the ACTU is costing every Australian dearly-most of all our future generations, who stand to inherit a heavy legacy of debt. It is outrageous that a section of the community led by a few power-hungry trade union leaders has snatched unto itself indexed wages at the expense of the unemployed and our children. These people care only for themselves and their pockets. Battling depressed world market prices, the farmers are the biggest losers. The typical family farm business has been earning about 2 per cent return on capital invested-until this year, when it will be minus 6 per cent. In the past farmers benefited from some capital appreciation. This Government has seen to that. Today family farms are almost unsaleable. Last year overseas financial interests, in passing their judgment on the Hawke Government, collapsed our trade weighted dollar by nearly 30 per cent. The Government then manipulated the financial system to stop the dollar collapsing to its real level. So much for its market forces and deregulation of the financial system. The Government bloated interest rates by 6 to 7 per cent to satisfy its own plan to save the accord-costing farmers $750m in a full year. These are sorts of costs that we do not see up on the notice board but they are there, as indirect costs, if we calculate them. The financial security of thousands of farmers and their families has now been devastated by Labor's unrelenting manipulation of the financial system. While our interest rates have reached record levels, overseas rates have fallen. American rates have fallen from 10.5 per cent to 9 per cent; in West Germany rates have fallen from 8 per cent to 7.5 per cent; and in Japan, from 5.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent. Of the 13 major competing nations I mentioned earlier, 11 have experienced cuts to interest rates over the last year. Interest rates rose in two countries-Canada and Australia. The Canadian rates are up 0.5 per cent. Over the same period, Australian rates rose over 6 per cent and even now, following recent falls, are 5 per cent higher, at 19.6 per cent. This is a Government of records-record farm debt, record real interest rates, and record external debt. The Government's policy mix has contributed to the farmers' crashing incomes, now estimated at a net $3,800 average income per farm this year. Now we learn today of a further 21 per cent forecast drop in the real net value of rural production-a key indicator of farm incomes. This figure has only just come to light. We have a drop of a further 21 per cent, remembering that the drop the year before was 40 per cent. We are ending up in this country with a rural poverty ghetto. This statement is designed to redress that. The Prime Minister has flown off, with his bags full, to tell President Reagan what he has done to Australian farmers and would he please come to our aid and knock off the farm Bill. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Minister by his own words has indicated the farm crisis will worsen dramatically in 1986-87. He is absolutely right. One cannot describe as equitable a policy mix which has resulted in the total farm interest bill exceeding total net farm incomes. The Government's failure to tackle interest rates effectively is an attack on the living standards of the average Australian. The Minister in his statement has made soothing noises about interest rates, while taking no substantive action. In this House on 22 August last year the Minister forecast: This Budget will bring interest rates down. Mind you, he was the only one brave enough to say it. The prime rate was then 17.5 per cent. Today it is 19.6 per cent. Of course it did rise to over 20 per cent. Today he forecasts that `The scene appears to be set for further falls'. If his past predictions are any guide, we had better prepare for the worst. The Minister attempts to claim credit for reducing production costs. Let us look at the facts relative to our competitors. General inflation rates in Australia are running at about double the average of our major competing nations. A comparison of wholesale price index movements shows Australia's rate to be six times the average. Labor's policies have removed Australia from the low end of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development range of inflation levels to the high end. I am sick and tired of hearing people, particularly those opposite, say that the inflation rate was worse when we were in government. So was the world's inflation rate. We were at the lower end of the OECD range, yet today we are at the higher end. Farmers' domestic production costs have increased at twice the speed of their overseas competitors since this Government came to office. The ratio of prices received to those paid has dropped 12 points, from 85 to 73, in three years. Worse, there has been a further plunge of six points in the last half of 1985, against the long term trend of two points in a full year. The third economic policy area identified at Outlook by Dr Stoeckel is the value of the Australian dollar. What substantial action has been taken, firstly, to restore confidence in the Australian dollar and, secondly, to stop the manipulation of the exchange rate? The problem with the current dirty float is that export returns have risen about 2 per cent this year, but the cost of imported farm inputs is up by a devastating 25 per cent. The dirty float has left farmers betwixt and between-unable to gain improved incomes but having to pay inflationary cost increases. In many industries the devaluation has not resulted in higher prices for products. In fact, in some instances commodity prices have fallen substantially. If the interest rates were not being forced to artificially high levels and the dollar allowed to find its true market position, it would help to correct this massive imbalance. Labor's economic strategy has hurt the farmers, and three good seasons have not rescued them. They are battling depressed world prices and high domestic costs when compared to our overseas competitors. The Government has failed to give full relief from the cost burdens it is imposing on fuel prices including petrol, farm machinery and parts. It is a message the farm organisations have battled desperately to get home to all Australians, but it has been to no avail. I address those initiatives put forward by the Minister in the light of my 14-point plan submitted earlier this year. This plan addresses the crisis, not as a magic cure-all, but as a series of constructive policy actions which could be taken to reduce the cost burden on the export oriented farm sector. Sadly, the Hawke Government has failed to come to grips with the farm crisis. Let us see how this Government has responded to the 14 points. My first point was that the Government should pass on immediately the full benefits of lower oil prices to the community, including the embattled farm, fishing and timber industries. Last year under extreme pressure the Government gave back only what it had earlier taken away-the full diesel excise rebate for off-road use-but it has sent petrol excise through the roof. Point two was abolition of fuel excise indexation. Indexation was a cunning scheme imposed by the Government to give it automatic revenue increases. Clearly, it does not want to lose the bonuses from this snide form of taxation, despite the extra burden imposed on the community. My third point related to the removal of sales tax on fuel and lubricants used on farms and in fisheries, a tax which this Government introduced. On that there has been no government initiative. Point four called for restoration of a more equitable fuel freight equalisation scheme. That scheme was another important device to ease some of the inordinate cost burdens on country people and to compensate them for the tyranny of distance but it was scrapped by this Government as indeed it was scrapped by the Whitlam Government. No attempt was made today to return to that scheme. Point five involved scrapping the anti-farmer measures of the tax package. At least, the Government has acted on this point by abandoning its vicious, discriminatory quarantining farm losses provision, but let me underline the point. This has not cost the Government a cent, but we now face another or alternative range of taxes. The threat of this tax measure and this package has cost farmers plenty. Combined with the capital gains tax proposals and high interest rates, these factors have accelerated the crash in land prices and brought about almost a standstill in land sales. The widespread crash in land prices has undermined farmers' equity with many farmers unable to justify their debt load. The Government's package has failed to address this fundamental problem. My sixth point called for a backing off from the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal. There has been no such commitment today, except to say that it will be postponed or put down the track up to two years. It will be as flexible as that. This is a ludicrous move designed with one purpose in mind, which is to transfer billions of dollars in resources to the effective control of the trade union movement and to achieve compulsory union membership by stealth. Point seven related to greater flexibility of wages policy to take account of industry's capacity to pay. Australia stands alone in its inflexible wages policy which is destroying our competitiveness as a trading nation. Yet this Government of the people by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and for the Australian Council of Trade Unions has made no effort to change, and it is a sell-out to the union movement. It would have been well advised to heed the advice of one of our great trade union leaders, one of the most responsible people in the nation, Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon. Point eight concerned a change in the economic strategy to ease interest rates-perhaps one of the biggest failings of this document. The Labor Cabinet has not had the courage to change its mix of policies because it does not want to face a renegotiation of the accord. Point nine called for a clean float of the Australian dollar. The obsession to prop up the dollar by maintaining high interest rates is designed to avoid any renegotiation of the accord. Point 10 sought the provision of immediate substantial funds to the rural adjustment scheme. It is true that the extra $22m is welcomed. This $22m outlay should give producers access to an additional $220m in loans from commercial sources. But I hope that the Government will honour its commitment to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible in the administration of the scheme because dozens of people in great financial difficulty are coming to me saying that they cannot get any assistance from the rural assistance scheme. I would also point out that under the revised scheme the States and the Northern Territory are required to pay 50 per cent of the interest concession-that is, to match these outlays by the Commonwealth, dollar for dollar. It is up to the State governments to make sure that they do not act in any miserable way in administering the scheme. Further, the House should be aware that this Government has cut direct outlays to the rural assistance scheme by $27.6m since coming to office. The $22m outlays announced today do not fully compensate for that cut. Mr Braithwaite —It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr HUNT —Yes, it is extraordinary. The Government knocked off $26m as soon as it came to office, and today in this flourishing manner it says that it will increase the sum by $22m. It is putting a little bit into one pocket and taking a lot more out of the other. That is what the Government is up to. It is an outrage. In fact, the combined funding for the rural assistance scheme and drought relief was $125m in 1982-83 against $16.9m this year. That statement speaks for itself. Mr Tim Fischer —That is a shame-an absolute shame. Mr HUNT —It is shameful-in fact, a disgrace. I wish the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) were here to respond in the way only he can. If he were here, he would be absolutely outraged. Point 11 concerned the replacement of tariffs on agricultural chemicals, farm machinery and parts with bounties. I welcome the move to replace the tariff on some agricultural and horticultural machinery used for soil preparation and so on with a bounty and to remove the 2 per cent duty on agricultural chemicals. But that does not go far enough. Bounties should apply to all farm machinery and parts in this hour of crisis. There is no way that the farmers, embattled and beleaguered as they are, with incomes about a fifth of average weekly earnings, should be called upon to pay a tariff on inputs to sustain industries and employment in those industries. If it is necessary-and it probably is a social requirement and a necessity-to protect jobs in those industries, it should be a charge against the pockets of every Australian. Equity is all farmers ask for. I repeat that bounties should apply to all farm machinery and parts. The Government should have been prepared to live up to its promise to reduce the price of chemicals for farmers by replacing tariffs with bounties. Instead, we have today another promise, and the Government continues to avoid taking any action by hiding behind the Industries Assistance Commission. I come to point 12, which is the abolition of export inspection charges to producers. One of the misleading statements this Government loves to spread is that the coalition was responsible for vastly increased export charges. Let that fallacy be buried once and for all today. We did not pursue the 50 per cent cost recovery in the light of difficult farm economic conditions. Labor's actions have resulted in a 200 per cent plus increase on vital wealth producing export farm industries. There has been no initiative to reduce this cost burden imposed by this Government, and that is a grave indictment of Labor's attitudes. Point 13 concerned steady predictable cuts in tariff protection, and I have dealt with that. There is no way that the farm sector can continue to meet those sorts of burdens without relief. Point 14 is the restoration of the tax benefits of the income equalisation deposits scheme. The gutting of the IEDs by this Government is costing farmers at least $20m a year, and this point has been totally overlooked. I turn to the reference to the depressed sugar industry. The long-awaited statement for the sugar industry has at last surfaced. Mr Braithwaite —It has taken three years. Mr HUNT —It has taken three years, as the honourable member for Dawson reminds us, and he represents one of the most important sugar producing districts in Australia. The contribution by the Government to this industry at this time is nothing less than disgraceful. It is a disappointing response, in spite of the major contribution to the industry by the Queensland Government. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) asked a question on this topic yesterday. I am glad he did so, because he has hurried the Government up. There is no doubt that the honourable member for Kennedy brings great pressure to bear on the Government to satisfy his constituents, but not even the honourable member for Kennedy is going to be happy with this. This contribution amounts to $72m in loans and grants for carry-on finance, with another $170m promised. The need for a minimum $240 per tonne floor price has been ignored. Mr Ian Robinson —A broken promise-a totally broken promise. Mr HUNT —As the honourable member for Page, who also represents a very important sugar producing district, has said, it is a broken promise. Instead of the minimum $240 per tonne floor price, growers have a floor price of $230 for the current season against a predicted No. 1 pool return of $225m. The floor is $225 for 1986 but the pool return will be $237 and a floor of $220 in 1987 against a forecast return of that same amount; in other words, the support is likely to be only about $15m for one season. Mrs Sullivan —Miserable. Mr HUNT —It is miserable. The cost to the Commonwealth will be $10m. It is a miserable and outrageous response to a desperate industry situation. Labor has turned its back on the sugar industry and I am sure that every sugar producer and worker in the towns that depend on the mills and the industry will not forget them at the next election. It is a scandalous response to a solemn election promise and it is typical of the Government's mean and miserable approach to the distress that is being felt in the farm sector. It is beyond belief that the Hawke Government could have failed to address the central issues of the damaging interest rates, inflation and the exchange rate in a meaningful way. The Minister's statement does not undo the destruction that these factors have caused to rural Australians. The question I ask once again is: How can the Prime Minister possibly convince the European Commission and the USA that they should bend over backwards to help our farmers and that they should become more rational in their agricultural policies when they know that the Australian Labor Party has indulged in an orgy of farmer discrimination? The statement is devoid of concrete initiatives. Sure, we have heard a few broad generalisations about the future and that was to be expected, but if the Government were serious about addressing the long term needs it could have changed its macro-economic polices to enhance competitiveness. The Government had at its disposal the report of the Balderstone Working Group to Provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture. That report dealt in vast detail with the issues and options facing farmers in the 1980s and beyond. For instance, in relation to research, it stressed that individual farms are too small to carry out advanced agricultural research because the expenditure threshold for scientists and equipment is beyond the capacity of the individual farm. Whilst I commend the Minister for the changes to specific industry research funding arrangements, I am disappointed that there are no real funding initiatives to assist farmers in coping with the downturn of world commodity prices for cereals, dairy products, sugar and wine products. The Government must research more closely alternative cropping prospects, market development, packaging, presentation, promotion, the preservation of goods and their distribution, along with improved storage, transport, handling and the certainty of delivery. If our farmers simply go on ploughing, cultivating and sowing traditional crops in the face of mounting world stockpiles, there is no profitable future for Australian agriculture. We are living in a world where, as a result of a number of well known factors, cereals and traditional crops are in oversupply. We are also living in a world of changing tastes and spending patterns, where people are seeking alternative food types. With research, foresight and innovation, our farm industries could diversify into a seemingly limitless range of alternative crops. Therefore, the Government needs to assist in producing information to farmers, enabling them to produce products which are both salable and profitable on world markets. The advice given the other day by a Moree farmer, Mr Alan Hunter, to farmers to try out new forms of cropping and to be flexible in farming and cropping techniques is worthy of consideration by the Government. There is no point increasing cereal cropping if the world has more cereals than it can eat. There is no point continuing to market products in traditional packages if that is not what the market requires. Market research in particular must be tackled in a big way, perhaps through the establishment of single purpose research units. The additional expense need not be great, but the concentration of effort could be of enormous benefit to the nation. Australia's record foreign debt and shocking current account deficit demand a mighty trade effort by the Government. Both the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Trade need to be given much greater priority in status and expenditures. There is a need to focus attention on the necessity to ensure that our production is of the highest possible quality. With the renewed threat of drought farmers are becoming increasingly worried that their run of good wheat growing seasons is coming to an end and I must say that it is an extraordinary state of affairs that this comprehensive statement devoted only two sentences to drought relief. There is no mention of small business or its difficulties. The statement is a major disappointment to the many thousands of farmers and their families who are in desperate financial trouble and who were looking to the Government for relief from its crippling influence on their costs. I must say that all the farmers sought was a fair go, but they have not obtained that. I think that the Government now faces some very difficult times with the farm sector and, if it faces new rounds of rural militancy, it will do so in the knowledge that the farmers have given it every chance to change its damaging economic strategy. It has let the farmers of Australia down. The package is a total disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned. 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 showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Brumby,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur,Mr McGauran,Mr Reith and Mr Shipton. 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 lag time 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 Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Grace,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mr Lee,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Sharp. 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 on 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 Andrew,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Hunt and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should; Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 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 Mr Shipton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of:- 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: According to the Senate Select Committee report 1 million sheep have died during export to the Middle East in the last 5 years. At least 2% die on each voyage, in addition to the large numbers which may die as a result of particularly adverse conditions, for example 40,000 due to fire, 15,000 due to cold at Portland and 15,000 recently due to humidity near Jedda. Beyond the mortality figures, all sheep endure the stress of the voyage and the cruelty of halal slaughter (which has recently been banned in Britain). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should accept the findings of the Senate Select Committee. In particular: 1. to phase out the live sheep export trade over 5 years and to substitute for it a refrigerated sheepmeat trade. 2. in the interim, to give the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the welfare of export sheep in Australia, including the power to stop abuses, 3. in the interim, to implement the Senate Select Committee's recommendations regarding the improvement of current conditions and husbandry practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Scott. 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 programs, 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 Hand and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: The right of egg farmers to run their own business unencumbered by State and Federal Government controls. That the Federal Hawke Government aided and abetted by the New South Wales Wran Government- (1) Has bankrupted and imprisoned Martin Tebbutt, poultry farmer; (2) Has further bankruptcy actions on five other egg farmers; (3) Has caused imprisonment of 13 other people on egg board related matters; (4) Since inception of government hen quotas, some 2,100 egg farmers have left the industry in ten years (averaging 4 farmers per week); (5) The hen quota system hailed as the family farmer's saviour has become his executioner. That these methods of administration are equally capable of application to other agricultural industries with similar interference with our rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will release Martin Tebbutt from jail, order all bankruptcy proceedings be dropped, severely reprimand the egg board concerned and allow all egg farmers to only pay the egg board if they use it (User-Pays). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia-in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that Region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: 1. To fund a S.W.A.P.O. office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. 2. That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. 3. That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. 4. To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-Itself the creation of three Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; 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 destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and the present justice system in this country or in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the 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 Grace and Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in Higher Education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985. Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia. Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia. Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers' money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The petition of certain 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 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 your 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 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 in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully seek a delay in the new funding arrangements planned for April this year for Subsidised Child Care Centres in Australia; and express total opposition to the cuts in child care which are beginning to have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, peak bodies representing children's services, and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions ensure that funding mechanisms are fully explored and ensure more appropriate funding guidelines. 3. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 4. That such discussions be mindful of the need to retain high quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to change market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain citizens of Somerset Dam in the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we object to the hasty and ill conceived relocation of the public telephone facility at Somerset Dam on the grounds that- (a) it does not meet the needs of the area; (b) it does not have the support of the local Community; (c) it is open to vandalism; (d) it is poorly lit. Your petitioners therefore request that: A further public telephone service be made available at the previous location or if this is not possible that the present public telephone service be resited at its previous location. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; that the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; that the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; that the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as `Capital Gains tax after death' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Government throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they opposed the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration) Bill 1986 Builders Labourers' Federation (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. Motion (by Mr Uren)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr Sharp be discharged from the attendance of the Committee of Public Accounts, and that, in his place, Mr Conquest be appointed a member of the Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The effect on jobs, family living standards and Australian industries of the Government's tax proposals. 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 DOWNER(Mayo)(5.30) —Australians are becoming increasingly aware that Australian industries, be they our rural industries, our manufacturing industries or our service industries, are failing to compete in the international market-place, and that is having very severe implications, both now and in the longer term, for employment in this country and for the living standards of ordinary Australians. We have only to look at the latest balance of payments figures, which show that we are running a deficit of $1 billion in one month, to know that we have a major problem with the competitiveness of our industries. When we look at the performance of our balance of payments over this financial year we are looking at the prospect of a deficit of some $14 billion, or 28 per cent, above the original Budget estimate. It is not surprising with that failure of our competitiveness that we are running up a foreign debt now of around $70 billion-a debt that will have to be paid off by our children and our grandchildren. The causes of this failure of the Australian economy to compete are, of course, manifold and have frequently been canvassed in this House. But perhaps I should briefly remind the House that one of the major causes of that failure is the fact that we have the highest real interest rates in this country for over 50 years and the highest real interest rates-even according to the eminent Economist magazine-of the whole of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We have a wage fixing system which lacks the flexibility to enable Australian industries to compete in the international market-place, a point which is recognised by members of the trade union movement, by some Ministers on the other side of the House and by all on this side of the House but which is ignored in government policy. We also have an extremely high taxation regime. Indeed, our taxation levels at the moment, as a proportion of gross domestic product, are again around the highest that they have been in Australia's history. All these problems are being seriously exacerbated by the tax proposals that the Government originally introduced in this place on 19 September. Those tax proposals are already imposing additional costs on Australian industry on top of all those other costs that I have mentioned. By imposing those costs the Government is contradicting its own policy of making Australian industry more competitive, whereas in practice the policies of the Government, in particular its tax policies, are making our industries only less competitive. Of course, the result of that is a reduction in jobs and the prospect of fewer jobs in many of our industries. Of course, the consequence of that will be lost opportunities in terms of building up the living standards of Australians. All those consequences are coming about because our industries are becoming less and less competitive by international standards. One of the tax measures which has had the most severe effect on Australian manufacturing industry has been the fringe benefits tax. There is no doubt that that has had a very severe, anti-competitive effect on our manufacturing industries and the mining industry, where already mining companies are announcing that they will not be able to maintain their current levels of employment, partly because of the fringe benefits tax. Above all, the industry that is suffering already from the fringe benefits tax is the automotive industry, which is so important to my State of South Australia, to the people of South Australia and, in particular, to the people of metropolitan Adelaide. The fringe benefits tax is damaging the car industry because between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of all car sales are fleet car sales. The fringe benefits tax has increased the cost of those cars to employers who provide them as a benefit to their employees by, on average, about $1,600 a car. That is a very significant additional impost for employers in terms of what amounts to remuneration for their employees. When we look at some of the estimates of the impact of this fringe benefits tax we see that it is taking jobs away from people in the car industry and is reducing the living standards of all those many thousands of people who, in one way or another, are directly or indirectly associated with that industry. As I said earlier, that is particularly true in the case of my own State of South Australia. The South Australian Government, which after all is of the same political complexion as the Federal Government, has made representations to the Federal Government asking it to abandon this iniquitous proposal, because the result of it will be the loss of 4,500 jobs in South Australia. The Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries commissioned a study from the National Institute of Economic and Industrial Research, a body which is completely impartial in terms of party politics. That body has estimated that the fringe benefits tax alone-not the other measures that have affected the car industry-will take away 10,000 jobs from the car industry all around Australia. Even the trade union movement has weighed into this debate, expressing deep concern about the effect of the tax on the automotive industry. The Vehicle Builders Employees Federation estimates that up to 25,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the fringe benefits tax and other tax measures. When we look at the effect of this tax on the sales in the industry, we can see why so many jobs inevitably will be lost as a result of it. Again, referring to the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries study, it estimates that in 1986 some 35,000 cars will not be sold because of this tax and that in subsequent years after 1986 about 25,000 cars a year will not be sold. As a total, following all the measures the Government has recently introduced, as well as other issues such as the devaluation of the dollar, we are looking at the car industry losing sales this year of some 90,000 units. Devaluation of the dollar is certainly one of the causes. The fringe benefits tax, as I have explained, is one of the causes, together with record high interest rates and the introduction of unleaded petrol. When an industry is losing the sale of 90,000 units, it is inevitable that a large number of jobs will be lost, and it is inevitable that that will have a severe effect on living standards. The car industry plan, in which the Government has placed so much stock-in particular the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has placed his reputation on it-is in complete disarray as a result of these tax proposals, particularly the fringe benefits tax. The Government promised that its industry policy, including its car policy, would be one of predictability and certainty; but the community and the industry have got the reverse. The industry has got a complete change of policy, complete unpredictability, and that will lead to the virtual collapse of the car plan. Already the industry estimates that the fringe benefits tax will reduce sales of the larger Australian made cars by around 20 per cent. Those cars have high local content, and so by reducing those sales it will be just about impossible for the major manufacturers, particularly Ford and General Motors-Holden's Ltd, to meet the target of local content and for the car industry plan to be able to continue in its present form. We all know that Senator Button has made these points in Cabinet. We all know that he has gone there pleading for concessions on the fringe benefits tax. So has the Premier of South Australia and so has the South Australian Government. They all know the effect of the fringe benefits tax on the car plan, the car industry, jobs, and livelihoods. However, the Government has decided to reject the pleading of all these people and to march ahead with this iniquitous proposal regardless of its effect in terms of human livelihood. Exactly the same scenario exists for the hospitality industry, which has also been torpedoed by the Government's tax proposal and, in that case, by the Government's decision not to allow entertainment expenses as a tax deduction. A completely independent survey by BIS-Shrapnel summed up the economic impact, the impact in terms of jobs, of that proposal. It is estimated that some 11,000 jobs would be lost in the hospitality industry and that 18,500 jobs would be lost overall as a result of the proposal, and that it would reduce the Australian gross domestic product, the wealth of the Australian community, by some $434m. Obviously, this tax will also affect those producers who supply goods to the hospitality industry, and I refer to the dairy industry and the wine industry, for example, both of which are important to my electorate and to South Australia, a State that deserves more consideration from honourable members opposite. One has only to consider the way South Australians were treated during the election campaign over the issue of housing interest rates. South Australia was totally deceived then. The hospitality industry has been deceived and so has the car industry in South Australia. South Australia deserves a better deal than it is getting from the Federal Labor Party and the State Labor Party. These issues of the effect of the non-deductibility of entertainment expenses are of very real concern. Surveys taken since that tax measure came into effect have shown the very real impact of that tax. Already employment in the industry is down by 11 per cent; profits are down by 29 per cent, and turnover is down by 26 per cent. The cost of this tax measure to the South Australian Government in terms of revenue is some $5m. There is a great anomaly in all this, because under the tax proposal Australian companies are not able to deduct their entertainment expenses if they are operating in Third World markets, if they are trying to sell products to Asia or other parts of the world, yet their competitors from other countries are able to deduct those expenses. So, automatically, foreign companies have a competitive advantage over Australian companies as a result of this tax proposal of the Government. The car industry and the hospitality industry have been seriously affected by the Government's policy and its tax proposals, and so also has corporate profitability as a result of the Government's decision to increase company tax from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. That figure of 49 per cent will give Australia one of the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world. While I welcome the imputation initiative that has gone with it, there is no doubt that this 49 per cent tax rate will create major cash flow problems for Australian companies and affect their competitiveness. After all, British companies will be paying 35 per cent company tax later this year, but Australians will be paying 49 per cent. American companies are heading towards a tax rate of 33 per cent. Our companies will be paying 49 per cent, and it is irrefutable that as a result of that tax regime jobs will be lost and prosperity in our community will be significantly reduced. That also applies to the foreign tax credit system the Government has introduced which, under the changed tax law, will insist on Australian companies paying higher tax rates for their overseas operations than their international competitors. We are always coming back to this question of competitiveness. We are always finding that the Government's policies are undermining the competitiveness of our companies, whether their operations be at home or overseas, and of course that will have an impact on jobs. Of course it will have an impact on family living standards. Apparently, the Government is oblivious to these things. Its rhetoric is about improving job opportunities and improving competitiveness, but the reality of its policies has been quite the reverse. On top of these anti-business measures, these anti-business policies, there are all those other measures about which we have heard so much in this House over the past six months or so. I refer to the capital gains tax, which strikes directly at the heart of the small business community and our rural communities, and to the negative gearing proposals, which strike directly at low income people who are renting housing and who are finding housing shortages in that sector of the economy and their rents escalating dramatically. Further, there is the matter of the quarantining of farm income. I thought I would not have to include that in my speech today, but the quarantining of farm losses is still going on, and again that is a tax measure that strikes directly at our rural industries. All these things added together are affecting the car industry, the hospitality and entertainment industries, small business, big business and rural Australia. At the bottom line, those industries are being affected because the Government is oblivious to the equation that links competitiveness to jobs, links jobs to people's livelihoods, and links competititveness and jobs to standards of living in the community as a whole. This is a government obsessed with its passion for redistribution of wealth and a government that is oblivious to the need to create wealth through our business sector, our rural sector and our small business community. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.45) —I must congratulate the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) on the manner in which he presented his case here this afternoon. He spoke well, but I am afraid that the content was, as usual, far from the mark. Let us get down to what we are talking about here. Some of the claims that have been made, particularly about the effect of the Government's proposed taxation policies on manufacturing industry, and certainly the effect of the fringe benefits tax on the hospitality industry, are just patent nonsense. My colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) will pick up some of these later. Firstly, I go to the particular point about the hospitality industry. It is a hoary old chestnut that keeps being trotted out. I made some comments on this matter when it came before the House last year. Quite obviously, all the estimates that were made about job losses in the hospitality industry and the effect of the new taxation measures, no free lunches being available and so on, were just that-estimates. Quite frankly, if we look at all the nonsense that was written at the time that these tax proposals came into place, we see that absurd estimates were made. For example, one headline in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 October last year stated: 13,500 food jobs to go, says Amex. That was an American Express survey. A similar story reported in the Australian warned that 30,000 jobs would be lost. Yet that referred to the same Amex survey. Of course, the honourable member for Fadden, (Mr Jull), an Opposition member, said: `1,000 people have lost their jobs in the restaurant industry in Queensland in the past two weeks'. That was just after that legislation had come into the House. We also had a survey from the Restaurant and Catering Association that claimed that about 10,000 jobs in the restaurant industry could be lost by the end of last year as a result of the proposals. Then we had the other classic to which I have made reference before, when the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made the claim that 80,000 jobs would be lost in the industry if the free lunch was abolished. Of course, our colleague in the Senate, Senator Walsh, made the point that the total number of people employed in the industry is believed to be only about 76,000; so the claimed number of jobs lost would represent more than the number of people employed in the industry. Quite frankly-I speak from some experience because I have two brothers who work in this industry-the claims that have been made of job losses because of the taxation proposals are just patent rubbish. There are people who work in the restaurant industry who work in perhaps one, two or three jobs under different names, et cetera. People in the industry are transient. People go into that industry in the certain knowledge that they will not be there for a great deal of time because they can move around and get employment elsewhere. Obviously, the structural readjustment that is taking place in that industry has to be for the benefit of the people of Australia and to raise their living standards. We can look at The Lobby restaurant across the road. Since the fringe benefits tax affecting lunches was introduced-- Mr Hand —You cannot get a table. Mr MARTIN —One cannot get a table because the restaurant has cut its prices in half. What has been the effect of the tax measure in Sydney and other places? The cost of meals has come down because the restaurant owners have seen that they have been overcharging and that, if they want to attract clientele and promote competition, as suggested by the honourable member for Mayo, they have to be price competitive. Certainly we have seen people laid off within the industry. But they have drifted into other industries. That is just tantamount to proof that there was overemployment in many of these restaurants. The point made here about the fringe benefits tax is just absolute nonsense. The second point made was about the mining industry. I share some of the concerns of the honourable member for Mayo about the mining industry because, as in his State of South Australia, mining is very important in New South Wales and particularly in my electorate of Macarthur. But the point that has to be made is that it is not the fringe benefit tax that is affecting the mining industry; in effect, it is world economic conditions. For example, in the coal mining industry, because of the haphazard structure of coal marketing in this country whereby individual companies do their own thing overseas, the companies have to negotiate prices and this is not done in a structured manner. Of course, if we had the opportunity to have some sort of central marketing authority for coal, that problem might not exist. Nevertheless, while it does exist at present, the industry will be subject to fluctuations in world prices and competition from other suppliers. On the other hand, the suggestion that the fringe benefits tax is causing problems in the mining industry is absolute nonsense. Concern has also been expressed about reductions in jobs. It has been said that these have been caused by all these taxes that have been or will be imposed and their effect on manufacturing industry. What garbage! In under three years 605,000 jobs have been created by this Government. In terms of the manufacturing industry and, for example, the steel regions of Australia, if it had not been that this Government came to the rescue with the steel industry plan, there would have been all sorts of problems. But, because of the economic directions and policies of this Government, we have seen an upturn in the economic circumstances in these areas and we have indeed seen a return to better days and better fortunes. In the case of the Illawarra region, 18 months or two years ago there was 22 per cent unemployment. Over 10,000 people were given the old heave ho from the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Now employment is on the up and up. The unemployment rate has come down to 12 or 14 per cent and is improving all the time. Largely, this is because of the interest that this Government has had in the manufacturing sector and because it has taken appropriate remedies to offset some of the circumstances which surrounded the downturn in the industry. Of course, the Opposition's approach generally on this whole issue of tax reform has been totally and highly irresponsible because it has continued to support the tax avoidance industry. At the same time, it has still not come up with a tangible policy of its own. Where is that policy? Time and again last year we made the plea to the Opposition to come out with its policy. Of course, we were told in about November last year that the tax policy of the Opposition would be in place in the middle of this year. That time is getting pretty close. Like my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), I look forward well and truly to seeing just what that policy will be. In regard to the package announced by the Government, the Opposition was more than happy to support the goodies in the package, such as the alleviation of poverty traps, the tax cuts and the elimination of double tax on dividends. But once again it demonstrated its opportunism by expressing opposition to the reform measures which would generate the necessary funds. When the Opposition's policy comes out, I hope Opposition members will tell us how they will pay for all of the promises without putting in these particular measures and reducing tax avoidance opportunities. The attitude of the Opposition was summed up in an article in the Age of 13 November last year by Michelle Grattan. In talking about the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), she said: John Howard, who came to the leadership as the man who knew where he was going, is now the chap who appears embarrassingly in the middle, between the toughies whose mutterings have led to the premature birth of the coalition response, and the `wets' who either disagree with an Opposition opposing revenue Bills or want to keep the former line of waiting to see the legislation. She went on to state: And an opposition that claims to be economically responsible is now taking an entirely irresponsible position of opposing the `nasties' in the tax changes while endorsing the giveaways. It is good to see that the old habits are back. At least we know where the Opposition now stands on the tax package: right there under that big sign labelled `Expediency'. I said last year that I could not have said that any better, and I reiterate that view today. If we go further into where the Opposition, and more particularly the Leader of the Opposition, stands on this issue, very clearly we get an indication of just what has happened. Quite clearly, the record of the Leader of the Opposition on the issue of tax evasion and avoidance has been absolutely shocking. For example, bottom of the harbour tax avoidance became rampant in the 1970s. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition, who was one of the leading lights of the government of the day, had responsibility in the Treasury portfolio to do something about it. After the Opposition Leader was exposed to the McCabe-Lafranchi report in 1982, he admitted in June 1982 that the Commissioner of Taxation had asked him as early as May 1978 to pass a special law against bottom of the harbour schemes. In 1978 the Tax Commissioner told the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Treasurer: Despite the possibility that such prosecutions may be able to be launched, I think that the specific taxation offence of the kind indicated should exist. The relevant law was not passed until 2 1/2 years after he was first made aware of the offence. At the time-this is an interesting point-the Leader of the Opposition admitted that the reason why he could not get his anti-bottom of the harbour legislation was that he got rolled by his Cabinet colleagues. This is the Party, this is the Opposition, which now stands for rorting the tax system. It did it in 1978 and it still does it. At the same time the Opposition does not go to the people with coherent policies which would seek to clarify its position in this area. Of course the Leader of the Opposition was caught out again in August 1982 when the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was tabled. It showed that year after year the former Government failed to institute prosecutions against tax evaders who were promoting illegal schemes costing Australia hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The third time-one would think that the Opposition would learn after two times, but no, it was caught out again a third time-in 1984 there was a report by the special bottom of the harbour prosecutor, Roger Gyles. He sheeted home the responsibility directly where it belonged when he said: If there had been an adequate administrative, judicial and political response in the first place the situation would never have arisen. Since the Leader of the Opposition has been in opposition he has surrendered totally to the tax avoidance industry and, or course, as he is the Leader of those opposite the whole Party must be judged by the people for what it is. Five times in the Senate the Opposition rejected bottom of the harbour legislation and it has the nerve to talk about taxation, the policies of this Government and their effects on the broader community and on living standards. In the case of the latest Bill, defeated on 19 April 1985, the Opposition's action cost law abiding taxpayers of this country $270m and that was enough to finance a tax cut of $44 a year for every taxpayer. Yet the Opposition, in its sanctimonious way, talks about community standards, living standards of ordinary Australians and the problems that this Government has supposedly created because of the policies that it has put in place. The Government's tax reform package and the package of measures that this Government has introduced will curtail the avoidance industry because the top marginal tax rate will be aligned with the company tax rate and the Opposition does not like it. Why? Because it will catch out its mates, its little mates in industry whom it has been helping all the time. An honourable member on this side reminded me about all the honest taxpayers whom the Liberal Party represents. I was interested to note in the newspapers recently that somebody mentioned the fact that John Elliott-I understand that he is the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party and one of the chief honchos of Elders IXL Ltd, soon to be BHP, and the list goes on-pays something like only 25 per cent taxation. That is typical. If we are being fair dinkum and if we are talking about this matter with a real desire of improving the economic fortunes of this country and the ability of the average taxpayer to meet his commitments, the little people who want to pay their fair share of tax and who put in their returns properly- Mr Hollis —People like you and me. Mr MARTIN —People like the honourable member for Throsby and me. We have to look to other people to do the right thing, and unfortunately they are not doing it. I recall the Treasurer saying that the Opposition does nothing but defend the cheats again and again. Of course we know the Opposition's position on the Australia Card which would have gone some way to improving the situation in terms of our ability to recoup a lot of tax. It has been reported that the Opposition will vote against the card and the changes that it would make. I am aware of some of the concerns on this side. Nevertheless, it is honourable members on the other side who have made their position quite clear because- Mr Bilney —Indefensible. Mr MARTIN —It is indefensible simply because the Opposition members are defending their big business friends, the ones to whom the honourable member for Mayo referred as the ones who will be the salvation of the economy. Quite clearly, the proposition that has been put to us that the Government's tax proposals have had a deleterious effect on jobs, family living standards and Australian industry is nothing but humbug and it will be judged by the people of Australia for what it is. We on this side have clearly shown our commitment to fixing up the tax system, to making it fairer and more equitable and to stopping the rorts in it and and we are going a great deal of the way towards ensuring that the economic future of this country is secure. Indeed, we will continue to do this by pursuing these policies, which have been carefully thought out and canvassed in the general community and which will, I am sure, lead to an improvement in the living standards of all Australians. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(6.01) —If these matters have been so well thought out I wonder why the Government has not come forward with more legislation at this stage. It is now over six months since 19 September last year when the Government announced its proposals and it has legislated on only four or five of them. That does not seem to give any indication that the Government's tax proposals are very well thought out at all. In fact it gives the opposite impression, that is, that when the Government gets to the details of the proposals, they will not work and that is the problem. Today Australia is being mismanaged by a government that is largely gloss and a lot of froth and that is just what we have heard in the last few minutes. It is long on words and short on action, as the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) said a few moments ago in the House when he spoke on the package brought down in regard to the rural industry. The Government likes the glossy pamphlets that go with its promotion of Priority One: Young Australia, Youth Access, the National Agenda for Women and, most recently, the drug offensive. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have tried to turn this chamber into a theatre where only theatrics matter. They pride themselves on being top operators on television as they massage the Australian people with warm, reassuring words that often mean absolutely nothing. That is exactly what we are getting in this tax package. This Government is bedevilled by a large gulf between what it says it will do and what it actually does. There is no consistency between the high sounding principles of tax reform that all of us this time last year were being bombarded with and the reality now being expressed by the average small businessman, farmer, single parent, the needy and the newly married couples of Australia. This matter of public importance has been raised by the Opposition because the tax proposals of this Government are creating an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty. The fundamental issues-reducing government expenditure and the cost impost on industries and families in Australia-have not been addressed. What this Government is about is tax, tax, tax and more tax. The consequence of this is that Australia continues to lose any competitive edge that it had in world markets and the 750,000 strong small business community and 170,000 farmers, along with the many ordinary hard working Australian families, are losing confidence in this Government, if they ever had any. Today the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) announced that farm losses will not be quarantined. Once upon a time this was a major plank in the Government's adventure in raising tax from the productive sector of the Australian community. However it has now been torpedoed, or has it? The Government still talks about targeted remedies. I wonder what that means. Again it just shows that this Government is a lot of froth. This proposal was the third ticket item on the Government's revenue raising estimates and it shows that this Government is vulnerable to the pressures that come from various interest groups around Australia. Why does it not sit down and work out a strategy which will benefit all Australians, not just sections? Obviously, the Government has had to cave in to the logic of the rural people of Australia and to take out that part of the package. Why should the Australian people have confidence in a government that continually backtracks? On 16 February 1983 the Prime Minister said-it is good to keep telling this to the Australian people: Let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it, and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion. There will be no capital gains tax. What do we have to add to the proud achievements of this Government but a capital gains tax, brought in and agreed to by the Prime Minister. It is a tax that is aimed at savagely mauling the capital value and goodwill increases that occur in the investments of small business, family farms and wage earners. Many wage earners around Australia who put their money into investments will be hit by the capital gains tax. I know waterside workers in my area who buy properties and farms. They say: `I do not want to be dependent on government welfare benefits when I get older. I want to be able to have the dignity of standing on what I have earned throughout my life'. Yet this Government is prepared to kill that sort of incentive. The incentive has gone. The desire to be independent of government welfare is being squashed because of this Government's attitude of knocking productive people and their families. Let me illustrate my point. Only last Saturday I went around to see an elderly gentleman who lives in a rather small house in my electorate. He talked a little about the assets test and went on to say: `The problem nowadays is that you just cannot believe what this Government tells you. Once upon a time a man's word, and in particular a Prime Minister's word, was his bond but it does not happen any longer, not with this Prime Minister'. This gentleman felt insecure and uncertain about the future. He had worked in a timber mill in the area and had invested in property. He said: `The incentive for workers in Australia to do that sort of thing now has gone because this Government wants to tax, and tax all Australians no matter what they do'. People reject the capital gains tax because it is discriminatory. I say that because a person buying a business or a farm after 19 September 1985 will be subject to a capital gains tax, whereas those who bought their businesses before that date will not taxed. Young Australians are energetic, creative and progressive. They reject the notion that they should be selected to shoulder the burdens of financial mismanagement brought on Australia by this big-spending Government. Why cannot this Government change its blinkered approach and create incentive for the young of this nation? No wonder Australia is losing its competitive edge when our most valuable resource-youthful entrepreneurship, creativity and motivation-is constantly being hampered. No wonder Australia is slipping into a quagmire in which living standards will fall. Another example of the blockades being placed between young families and future acceptable living standards is the area of reafforestation. Since the Government wiped out tax deduction calls on afforestation start-ups, the cost to new entrepreneurs has increased by 30 per cent. That is okay for established companies but it totally ignores the lag time for new investors in gaining a return on investment in this industry. In other words, it protects the big investors who are already there but gives no incentive to-in fact it kills off-anybody else who would like to enter that area of investment. This Government has placed a large barrier in front of small millers who desire to plan for the future and maintain their viability by planting trees so that they will have trees in 30 or 40 years' time for milling. Without such provisions these families inevitably will lose the opportunity to work in the timber industry. If the Government had wanted to maintain a thrust to improve the taxation system, rather than removing an incentive it should have addressed itself to the inconsistencies within the Australian Taxation Office regarding tax deductibility for the establishment costs involved in afforestation. Some people get fencing for their afforestation programs as a tax deduction and others do not. There are many other discrepancies in the taxation system as regards this area. A third area which is of great concern is the negative gearing of rental property investments. At a time when real estate interest rates are at their highest level since the 1930s and housing rates are at an all time high, this Government's policies have caused a grave shortage of rental accommodation around Australia. Why does this Government believe that it is preferable for people to be placed in government housing as against privately owned housing? According to industry figures, in all capital cities except Brisbane there is a severe shortage of rental accommodation. Whereas the industry believes that a 3 per cent occupancy rate is acceptable, Sydney, Hobart, Launceston and Perth have less than a one per cent occupancy rate and Melbourne and Canberra have less than a 2 per cent rate. Even with the Government's increased spending, the President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand)-I note that he will be following me in this debate-has stated that homelessness has increased. Yet the Government is prepared to initiate tax proposals which limit the provision of low cost housing, with consequences that severely dislocate the income of low income families. Last June the cases for options A, B and C of a tax package were argued. In September the Treasurer would have had us believe that we had obtained the unequivocal, irrefutable and most devastating tax reform ever carried out in Australia, commonly referred to as option ACTU. Today we have option ACTU minus Q-Q for the quarantining of farm losses. How does this Government expect people to plan and work in uncertainty and insecurity? It has procrastinated at length. Now an air of uncertainty and doubt, which began last year, pervades the whole area. Families cannot plan ahead and businesses find themselves in a game where the rules are uncertain, unfair and unchanging. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(6.12) —The confusion in the Opposition ranks is shown when the second speaker on the matter of public importance does not consult its proposer. I refer to the second speaker's comments about the assets test. The proposer of the matter of public importance, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), said on 9 June 1984, when he was acting as Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce: `The Government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test'. On the other hand, we have a series of attacks on the poor. On the one hand the proposer of the matter of public importance says that the Government is preoccupied with giving tax cuts to lower income earners. What a crime to be involved in-to give tax cuts to low income earners! If that is a crime, I am happy to be part of it. The honourable member also criticised the Government for being preoccupied with the redistribution of wealth. If the redistribution of wealth with fairness in our society is a crime, I am also happy to be involved in that sort of crime-not in the sorts of crimes people were involved in when honourable members opposite were in power or the preoccupation which their Government had with shoring up tax avoidance schemes. A matter of public importance has been put forward by the honourable member for Mayo who, it is well know, is a prominent supporter of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). It is possible to come to only one conclusion-that the proposition put forward by back benchers opposite is designed to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Obviously, when one talks about taxation in this place one cannot go anywhere other than to the shocking, outrageous performance of the former Treasurer of the Fraser Government, the current Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of the Opposition, as explained by the honour- able member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), time and again was told by the authorities that he was not acting in accordance with fairness in allowing tax avoidance to grow-it was probably the greatest growth industry we have seen in this country for many years-under his regime. One can come to only one conclusion-the honourable member for Mayo is obviously committed to his former employer, the honourable member for Kooyong. I should also point out that he was an economic adviser to the honourable member for Kooyong, which probably contributed to the downfall of the honourable member for Kooyong. The honourable member for Mayo had better look for someone else to back because he made a shambles of today's performance. The honourable member for Macarthur pointed out a number of times in his contribution that the Leader of the Opposition is totally discredited in terms of taxation. The Opposition, for its part, has not contributed to the tax debate at all. We have heard many Opposition speeches in this place but they were very short on detail. The previous Government left the tax system in a shambles. It did nothing to reform that tax system or to help bring about fairness in it. It supported certain sections of the tax package, but not the hard options or those which went to make the system fairer. They are the options that it opposed. We have also heard about the effects of some of our tax proposals. Quite clearly, the honourable member for Mayo comes from an electorate with a car industry. I have a close association with the car industry. I come from an area with one. I was recently at the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd where I talked to the management. The honourable member for Mayo ought to do the same thing because, for the second year in a row, the Ford people have had a profit in excess of $100m-in fact, $130m. His arguments fall very flat when one looks at the reality, which is that the decline in sales of cars has nothing to do with the tax changes. The introduction of cars using unleaded fuel meant that people bought cars earlier at lower prices. There has been no real downturn in fleet sales. The honourable member would do well to check with the people in the industry. His arguments are false and untrue. They are equivalent to the Opposition's performance when administering the tax system. Concerning the restaurant industry, because I wanted to touch on that matter-- Mr Andrew —I take a point of order. Mr HAND —Now those opposite will call a quorum because they do not want to hear the truth about the restaurant industry. (Quorum formed) I was beginning to talk about the restaurant industry. We have heard a lot of talk about job losses from it. That is plainly untrue. In my electorate I probably have more res- taurants per square mile than does any other in the country. I assure honourable members that those restaurants, quite frankly, are booming. For the information of the House, there is a 29.6 per cent higher vacancy rate this year than there was last year. The Opposition's arguments fall flat every time its members speak in this House because the Opposition leader's former economic adviser, John Hewson, has just invested in the restaurant industry. If the restaurant industry were such a bad bet why would a gentleman whom those opposite respect, in that they employed him as an economic adviser, rush out to invest in the restaurant industry? He has just done that. What those opposite are really crook about is that we have taken fringe benefits from them and their mates. That is what they are upset about. One has only to wander around the corridors of this Parliament to hear those blokes opposite say: `Why do we have to pay tax like everybody else? We do not normally pay tax like everybody else'. That is what this matter is really about-redistribution. Their mates will have to kick into the tax can like everybody else. Under this Government they will have to pay their share-no more than that. By ensuring that, we will be able to do the sorts of things that we are proud to want to do, the things those opposite were critical of, including the redistribution of wealth. Mr Carlton —Increased homelessness. Mr HAND —The honourable member ought to know better than to interject. At odd times, I thought that he might have cared about the underprivileged. It is obvious that he does not because otherwise he would support what I am saying. Redistribution of wealth is fundamental to this side of the House. We are accused of being preoccupied with being fair. We are preoccupied with that. We will hit those people whom those opposite propped up under Fraser and Howard when they were running the show. We will keep homing in on those people who have been manipulating the tax system and were allowed to develop that manipulation under the previous Government. The sort of thing that we are trying to do is make things easier for pensioners, allow more money to be made available for pensioners with children and bring in rent assistance, about which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) talked today. Under the previous Government we could not do any of that because its people, those such as the Liberal Party's Federal Treasurer, John Elliott, played with the lives of Australians every day by manipulating the system-and the Holmes a Courts will be caught up too. If honourable members had listened to the answer by the Acting Treasurer and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) last Friday they would know that the Government is looking to shore up that problem as well. We reject the Opposition's arguments because on every point the Opposition was wrong-on the car industry, the restaurant industry and the distribution of wealth. That shows the class of people honourable members opposite really care about. They are not the people we care about. It is the Opposition's mates who are now getting caught up because they have been ripping off the system for so long. Those opposite continue to tell the Australian working class that they will get the tax cuts but they will not get them when the Opposition is returned to government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion has concluded. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to elaborate on a matter which arose during Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DAWKINS —During Question Time I undertook to provide the answers to two questions which were, this morning, withdrawn from the Notice Paper. I have the questions and answers. I seek leave to have those questions and answers incorporated in Hansard. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr N.A. Brown —Leave is granted but I ask your indulgence- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot canvass. He can say yes or no and then I will make a ruling. Mr N.A. Brown —If you would hear me for a moment, Madam Speaker, the matter is simply that a practice has developed of the Speaker examining material to see whether it is appropriate to be incorporated in the Hansard. We give leave but we express the hope that, when you come to examine this material, you will do so against the background that some matters are appropriate to be included in Hansard and others are not. If, for instance, it were discovered that some diatribe is contained in one of the answers, directed at individuals outside the House, we would take the strongest exception. Madam Speaker, it is simply a matter for you-not for me-to make that examination. We trust that you would ensure that no material is included which would be contrary to the Standing Orders. Madam SPEAKER —Nothing will be incorporated in Hansard that is unparliamentary or outside the Standing Orders. Bearing in mind that there was flexibility within previous decisions given by Speakers of this House and as it is the will of the House, there being concurrence, the material will be incorporated. The documents read as follows- Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: (1) Did he (a) convene and (b) attend a meeting of the America's Cup Co-ordination Committee in Rome on 22 October 1985. (2) Did he intend to attend a meeting of the Committee in Genoa on 21 October; if so, what specific commitments prevented him from attending this first meeting. (3) After the Rome meeting, did he ask Mr Thomas Walton, the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, to discuss certain matters with him outside. (4) Did he there instruct Mr Walton to destroy minutes of a previous meeting relating to complaints by the Committee that America's Cup tourism projections had been overstated by 4-5 times and that the Committee had received no contact from the Australian Tourist Commission about a promotional program for the America's Cup. (5) Has he subsequently told a Western Australian news journalist that papers distributed by Mr Walton were pretty hopeless, although he was not sure exactly what papers were distributed and could not remember any figures on tourism. (6) Did he also tell this journalist that the fact that Mr Walton had been asked to collect and destroy these minutes had nothing to do with the projection of tourism-it was the other inaccuracies in it; if so, what were these other inaccuracies. (7) Did Mr Walton make any projections of tourism; if so, what were they; if not, who did, and what were they. (8) Was it for (a) tourism projects, (b) the other inaccuracies or (c) other reasons, that he decided to recall Mr Walton; if it was for other reasons, what were they. (9) Did Mr P. A. Hartigan, Acting Director of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service, write to Mr Walton on 14 November 1985, saying that (a) reservations exist among senior officers of the Department about Mr Walton's suitability for following up trade initiatives, especially in manufactures, with Italy, (b) the Minister for Trade had indicated that he also holds such reservations and asking Mr Walton a series of questions on his performance and activities as a Trade Commissioner. (10) Had Mr P. Hartigan, in a letter dated 9 September 1985, confirmed that Thomas Walton's posting to Milan would conclude in May 1986, and that a schedule had been drawn up including the appointment of a replacement in May/June 1986; if so, what was this schedule. (11) Is it a fact that, except at a regional meeting of Senior Trade Commissioners in Dublin in early 1985, the only opportunity he has ever had to observe Mr Walton's performance as Senior Trade Commissioner was at the meeting in Rome on 22 October 1985. (12) Can he furnish any proof that prior to 22 October 1985, any reservations existed about Mr Walton's capacity to adequately fulfil his duties as Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan. (13) Is it a fact that, under the Trade Commissioners Act and prior to the commencement of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985, a Trade Commissioner could only be removed from office by the Governor-General on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. (14) Did Mr Walton respond to Mr Hartigan's letter protesting his suitability to perform the duties of Trade Commissioner in Milan. (15) Did Mr Walton receive a letter dated 2 December 1985, informing him that the Minister had decided that he should be replaced in Milan with his departure to be effected by the end of January 1986. (16) Was Mr Walton's incapacity to perform his duties as Trade Commissioner ever proved; if so, when, where and how was this proved and recorded. (17) Was the Governor-General furnished with evidence or advice of Mr Walton's incapacity to perform his duties; if so, when and where. (18) Did he instruct that an advertisement for Mr Walton's position be placed in the Financial Review of 20 December 1985. (19) Did Mr J. H. Hemphill, Acting General Manager of the Corporate Services Group of his Department telefax Mr Walton on 23 January 1986, informing him that, subsequent to advice from the Attorney-General's Department and a declaration under the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985, by force of which on 6 January 1986 all commercial Trade Commissioners had become employed by the Australian Trade Commission, any question relating to Mr Walton's placement would be considered by the Trade Commission. (20) Did he decide not to contest Mr Walton's application to the Federal Court for a restraining order on 29 January 1986 because he took the view that there was subsequent legislation that makes Mr Walton an employee of the Australian Trade Commission and that any decision to recall him should be made by it; if not, on what grounds did he decide not to contest this application and instruct his legal representation to pay costs. (21) Who bore these costs and what sum was involved. (22) Is it a fact that under the Trade Commission Act he may give to the Commission in writing such directions with respect to the performance of its functions, and the exercise of its powers, as appear to him to be necessary. (23) Has he ever given the Commission, either when it operated as an office within his Department, or subsequently since it became a statutory authority, any instruction, in writing or otherwise, pertaining to the recall of Mr Thomas Walton; if so, what instructions, and when did he give them. (24) What action had the Trade Commission taken with regard to Mr Walton's employment and future placement, subsequent to 6 January 1986. (25) What action has (a) he, (b) the Trade Commission and (c) his Department taken in relation to Mr Walton since 6 January 1986. (26) Is it a fact that after 19 years service, Mr Walton has been informed by the Managing Director of the Trade Commission that he has no future as a Trade Commissioner for Australia, and no future as an employee of the Australian Trade Commission. (27) Was Mr Walton brought back to Australia in March 1986 merely to be told this; if so, what did this cost and why was it necessary considering Mr Walton was finishing his duties in May/June, whereupon he would have returned to Australia. (28) What will Mr Walton lose in superannuation by having to retire at 59, rather than at 60. Mr Dawkins —The answers to the honourable member's question are as follows: (1) (a) The meeting was convened at my request (b) Yes. (2) No. I was not in Italy at the time. The actual date of the Genoa meeting was 14-15 October 1985. (3) Yes. On the advice of my senior officials responsible for Trade Commissioner matters. (4) No. I instructed Mr Walton to withdraw, not destroy, the minutes of the Genoa meeting. (5) I am well aware what papers were distributed. My comment to the journalist was that I could not recall the exact contents of Mr Walton's document including the various tourist estimates contained therein. (6) As I said in response to Question 4 I asked Mr Walton to withdraw, but I did not ask him to destroy, his minutes. That action was not in any way related to any difference over projected tourist numbers, but to the unsatisfactory contents of the minutes. (7) and (8) These questions, as with Questions 5 and 6, imply that Mr Walton's performance in relation to the America's Cup Coordination Committee and the question of the tourist projections were factors in my decision to recall Mr Walton from Milan. In fact Mr Walton himself made no projections of tourists. It is true that I had occasion to discuss with Mr Walton his performance at an America's Cup Coordination Committee meeting in Rome on 22 October-as would any responsible Minister, given that the material one of his officers produced was unsatisfactory. In any event, my comments to Mr Walton did not concern conflicting evidence on the document Mr Walton had circulated about the number of Italian tourists likely to visit Perth. My reason for speaking to Mr Walton was that the document, which had been drafted by him was, in my view and in the view of my officers phrased in terms which were unnecessarily flattering to its author at the expense of other organisations involved and was therefore likely to militate against the coordinating activity that was the whole purpose of the America's Cup Coordination Committee. As well there was almost no reference to how our trade objectives could be advanced by this process. While I was displeased with Mr Walton's performance on that occasion I regarded it as a relatively minor matter and it was peripheral to my decision to recall Mr Walton. This decision was based upon reservations about Mr Walton's performance held by senior departmental officials and questions about his suitability for following up initiatives for expansion of Australia's trade with Italy which I had made during my visit to that country. I should add that these reservations went back several years and pre-dated Mr Walton's involvement in the America's Cup Coordination Committee. I was not surprised to learn, for example, that even prior to his departure from Australia, Mr Walton had seen Milan as a `retirement' post. (9) The answers to part (a) and part (b) of this question are yes. Other officers had both orally and in writing discussed with Mr Walton his performance both during and before my appointment as Minister of Trade. I would add that during the time for which I was responsible for the Trade Commissioner Service, up to 6 January 1986, the Trade Commissioner Secretariat was punctilious in responding to the voluminous demands from Mr Walton on all aspects of his posting to Milan and how long the posting would extend. The Trade Commissioner Secretariat was also careful to bring to Mr Walton's attention the reservations that I and the Department had about his performance to safeguard his rights in natural justice to have his side of the case heard. (10) Yes. The document referred to is the Provisional Trade Commissioner Posting Schedule. (11) Yes. If observation is confined to personal contact. No, if as is obviously the case, the Minister is kept informed by his officers of the state of his administration. I should add that there seems to be some inconsistencies in Mr Walton's recollection of the Rome meeting. The line of questions pursued by the honourable member in (3) and (4) above, for example, does not conform with the statement by Mr Walton in a cable dated 28 November 1985 to the Acting Director of the Trade Commissioner Service that: ``During the meeting in Rome, apart from formal salutations, the Minister and I did not converse, and you will understand therefore my bewilderment on now learning that the Minister holds any reservations about my suitability for following up any task presented to me in my field''. (12) Yes (13) Under the Trade Commissioners Act, 1933, proven misbehaviour or incapacity were grounds for terminating the appointment of a Trade Commissioner with any such decision to be taken by the Governor General, on the advice of the Minister for Trade. I never considered recommending the termination of Mr Walton's appointment. I did decide to change Mr Walton's place of work, from Milan to Canberra. Under the Act, responsibility for the location of Trade Commissioners lay with the Minister for Trade. (14) Mr Walton responded to Mr Hartigan's letter of 14 November on 29 November. In his letter he did protest his suitability to perform the duties of Trade Commissioner Milan. However I did not consider that he had put a sufficiently strong case about his performance in Milan to negate the reservations that I and Departmental officers held, and hold, about him. He did not, as he had been asked to do, quantify the proportion of his time spent on trade work as distinct from consular and immigration matters. In response to a question addressed to him about his marketing achievements whilst in Milan he supplied only 6 examples and it was left unclear just what his role was in the cases cited. I considered this an inadequate result for 2 1/2 years in the Post. He also failed to provide any convincing answer as to how he planned to follow up the trade initiative referred to above. In his response Mr Walton advanced in support of his case his experience since joining the Trade Commissioner Service. Accordingly, I asked that a review of his career as a Trade Commission be made. My assessment was although his career had not been without some merit, in overall terms his performance had not been outstanding and that he had been guilty on one occasion of an act of impropriety. (15) Yes. (16) This question is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between Mr Walton's suitability to continue as a Trade Commissioner at all; and his suitability to continue as a Trade Commissioner in Milan. Following my visit to Italy in October 1985, and initiatives I took for the expansion of Australia's trade with that country, I instructed the Acting Director of the Trade Commissioner Service, Mr P. A. Hartigan, to review Trade Commissioner staffing in Italy from the point of view of each officer's suitability for the more testing task the initiatives would involve. On the basis of this review Mr Hartigan made a submission to me in which he indicated that there were serious reservations in the Department about Mr Walton's performance. These reservations can be summarised as follows: (a) a number of senior officers believed that Mr Walton had not done his job well, at least in recent years, and also that the Milan Post was producing few identifiable trade results. (b) there was substantial evidence that Mr Walton had not discharged his trade promotion responsibilities in Milan with due diligence. (c) it was concluded that Mr Walton had left trade activities almost entirely to other members of the staff. Mr Hartigan indicated to me that whilst he did not believe Mr Walton had performed well in Trade matters in Milan there may have been a case for him, with the necessary management guidance, to see out his term there, had the task been a routine one. He went on to say, however, that the implementation of the initiatives for expansion of Australia/Italy trade would require an enthusiasm and application which he doubted Mr Walton possessed. In the light of this advice I ordered that Mr Walton be withdrawn from Milan. At no time did I consider the termination of Mr Walton's contract of employment. (17) No. See (13) above. There was no requirement to notify the Governor General of a change of headquarters. (18) Yes. It the context that the placement of an advertisement is but one of the steps in the recruitment process leading up to the selection of a suitable candidate to fill a vacancy. Mr Walton was due to depart Milan at the latest in May 1986. (19) Yes. (20) Yes. Acting upon the advice of the Australian Government Solicitor. (21) Costs borne by the Government amounted to $1,800. (22) Yes. However, it is not the intent of section 10 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 that such directions apply to individuals or individual companies. (23) I have never given the Australian Trade Commission nor its predecessor body, the Interim Australian Trade Commission, any direction relating to Mr Walton. (24) The Commission has advised me that it was aware of the reservations I had about Mr Walton's ability to perform his duties in Milan but wished to make its own completely independent assessment with regard to Mr Walton's employment and further placement within the Commission. Such action included asking Mr Walton to again present his case to the Commission thereby scrupulously following the processes of natural justice. Mr Walton responded to the Commission's request through his solicitors who indicated that their client did not intend to provide any further material in the absence of specific questions regarding his role or performance in Milan. It was at this time that the new Managing Director of the Australian Trade Commission decided that he should consult directly with Mr Walton. (25) (a) None; (b) see 24; (c) none. (26) No. The Managing Director advises me that he held two discussions with Mr Walton while Mr Walton was in Canberra. Mr Walton was not told that he had no future as an employee in the Commission. He was instructed to advise the Managing Director, before leaving Canberra to return to Milan about the ways in which he might beneficially serve the Australian Trade Commission in Australia either to completion of 20 years service or retirement at age 60. Mr Walton was to have communicated his response to the Managing Director prior to his return to Milan but failed to do so either to the Managing Director or any other officer of the Commission. (27) No. (28) No decision has been taken that Mr Walton will retire at age 59. Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Who (a) wrote, (b) advised on, (c) was consulted on and (d) inserted the advertisement for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, advertised in the Financial Review of 20 December 1985 and when was this advertisement placed. (2) How many applications did the Australian Trade Commission receive for this position, what selection procedures were followed and how many applicants remained under consideration at each stage of selection. (3) What expenses were incurred by (a) applicants and (b) the Commonwealth in this selection process in the way of airfares, accommodation, etc. (4) Did any senior member of a Minister's staff apply for this position; if so (a) when did they apply and (b) what stage did they reach in the selection process. (5) What starting date were applicants given for taking up their duties. (6) Was a Mr G. Watkins at any time in the last 2 years considered for this position and what stage had been reached in effecting his appointment. (7) Where is Mr Watkins now stationed, and what role and authority did he have in Mr Watkins' appointment. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following my visit to Rome in October 1985, and initiatives I took during my visit for the expansion of Australia's trade with Italy, I asked the acting Director of the Trade Commissioner Service, Mr P. A. Hartigan, to review all our Trade Commissioner staffing in Italy. On 2 December Mr Hartigan recommended that the Senior Trade Commissioner, Milan be withdrawn and I accepted his advice. In order to attract a wide field of candidates with specialist Italian background I directed that the position be advertised. The advertisement was drafted by the acting Manager, Personnel (Overseas) of the Interim Australian Trade Commission in consultation with the Europe Branch, Market Development Division of the Department of Trade. Prior to publication the draft was cleared by my office. The Acting General Manager, Corporate Services Group of the Interim Australian Trade Commission arranged for the placement of the advertisement. The advertisement was placed on 16 December 1985. (2) to (5) Responsibility for the Trade Commissioner Service passed to the Australian Trade Commission on 6 January 1986 and I have played no further part in the selection process since that time. The Australian Trade Commission has provided the following advice in response to various elements of the questions asked: (a) Twelve applications were received for the position. Nine applicants were excluded from further consideration because they either did not speak fluent Italian, did not have suitable high level management experience, or had no commercial or export experience. Two of the remaining three applicants were interviewed on 31 January 1986 by Mr D. Quirk, Chief Operating Executive, Pioneer Concrete Services and a member of the Australia/Italy Joint Working Group; Mr G. Bellchambers, Acting Manager, International Operations, Australian Trade Commission; Mr J. Hemphill, Acting General Manager, Corporate Services Group, Australian Trade Commission. Each Commission applicant's fluency in Italian was tested at that time by Mr Palumbo, Italian news reader for Radio Station 2EA. One of these applicants was excluded from further consideration as a result of these procedures. The third applicant, who is temporarily resident overseas, was interviewed in Frankfurt on 5 February 1986 by Mr Quirk who was in that city on private business. A decision has not yet been taken on which applicant will be appointed. (b) Expenses incurred by the Commission in the selection process were $1450; applicants' expenses are unknown. (c) The starting date of the successful candidate is to be determined after consideration of the candidate's personal and business commitments. (d) the Commission is not prepared to divulge information which would identify candidates. (6) and (7) On 13 August 1985, I agreed to a proposal by the Acting Director of the Trade Commissioner Service, Mr P. Hartigan, that Mr Watkins be appointed as Senior Trade Commissioner Rome to take up duty in January 1986; and that he move to Milan in June 1986 to take over from Mr T. Walton on conclusion of the latter's scheduled term. However, as indicated in answer to question (1), following my visit to Rome in October 1985 I asked that Mr Hartigan review all Trade Commissioner staffing in Italy. Mr Hartigan expressed reservations about Mr Walton's capacity to follow up the initiatives for expansion of our trade with Italy and proposed that Mr Walton be brought out early and Mr Watkins proceed directly to Milan, i.e. without first going to Rome. Initially I accepted this proposal. On further reflection, I decided that the head of our operation in Italy should be a specialist, in particular someone fluent in the Italian language. Mr Watkins was not an Italian speaker and whilst he could have been placed in either Rome or Milan in a subordinate position I did not consider that fair to him, given his seniority. I therefore accepted a proposal by my Department that he be given an alternative senior posting, namely to Los Angeles. Sitting suspended from 6.25 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed). Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos. 2 and 3. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.03) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's request to the Parliament for the appropriation of moneys to continue the administration of government presents an opportunity to examine the stewardship by the Government of the nation's affairs. The Hawke Labor Government has now been in office for three years and one month-quite long enough to form judgments about its overall shape, direction and performance to date and to forecast the likely forward results of its actions or, indeed, its failure to act. After three years of economic recovery Australia now faces a testing time. The Hawke Government has enjoyed three years of good luck with the economy, which it has oversold as good management. I suggest that the real test is about to begin. I shall argue that because of the way the Government has behaved during the economic recovery it has created significant problems for itself and for all of us. We shall suffer because of its stewardship. I shall also argue that the reality of the Government's performance falls short of its salesmanship. First, a little history: The economic recession of 1982-83 was the main cause of the downfall of the Fraser Government. It followed a broader world recession, with the usual Australian time lag, but its severity was increased by a series of disastrous droughts and by a wage explosion in 1981-82 resulting from trade union militancy. That militancy was supported by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who was then industrial relations spokesman for the Labor Opposition. Although it was not as damaging as the wage breakout of 1974-75, during the period of the Whitlam Government, which was directly led by the Prime Minister as the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it nevertheless destroyed jobs and eroded the value of people's savings. The Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Kelty, has since admitted that part of the purpose of this trade union militancy was to destroy the Fraser Government. It succeeded, at the cost of the jobs of a few hundred thousand of the workers Mr Kelty and the Prime Minister claimed to represent. Those gentlemen have since had the effrontery to blame the Fraser Government for the wage breakout. The Hawke Government inherited the fruits of two policy decisions taken by the Fraser Government which were to stand it in good stead-the stimulatory 1982 Budget, a recession Budget, and the wage pause. It also benefited from the upturn in the world economy and the breaking of the drought. Thus the economic recovery of 1983 to 1986 thrust itself on the immodest and self-congratulatory Prime Minister, whose government played no part whatsoever in bringing about that recovery. The question now is: What of the stewardship of the Hawke Government in regard to making the most of the recovery to secure Australia's economic future? It is an old axiom that in good times one stocks up the larder for the leaner times ahead. A prudent government would take advantage of the upswing in the economy to lay sound economic foundations for the more difficult conditions that inevitably arise. Let us look at the record. The first thing we notice is that the Hawke Government has been a big spending government. It squealed long and loud about the Budget deficit left behind by the Fraser Government and grossly exaggerated its size. At the same time, as I have already remarked, it benefited from the stimulus to the economy, at the height of the recession, in the 1982 Fraser Government Budget. Yet in the first two years of the upswing in the economy the Hawke Government joined the ranks of the big spenders. Federal Government spending went up by an average of nearly 7 per cent, after allowing for inflation, over the first two Labor Budgets. After three Budgets the annual average real increase in spending is 4.9 per cent, versus an average over seven years of only 2.1 per cent for the Fraser Government. In other words, the Hawke Government has spent taxpayers' funds at more than twice the rate of the Fraser Government, and the Fraser Government was in office for seven years while the Hawke Government has been in office thus far for only three years. The Hawke Government has not put aside for a rainy day. It has spent more than we have earned and has added to government debt. Fraser Government deficits, despite the Whitlam inheritance and despite the need to spend more during the recession, totalled $17.6 billion over seven years; Hawke deficits add up to more than that in only three years. They add up to $19.6 billion over three years, versus $17.6 billion over seven years for the Fraser Government. Each year's deficit under Hawke has been higher than the highest single year under Fraser. Instead of building up the larder the Hawke Government has been raiding it and it has had to resort increasingly to overseas borrowings. Australia is now in hock to the extent that it is close to the top of the list of international debtors. For the first time international bankers have begun to discuss the level of our debt. Our triple-A credit rating in world financial markets cannot last indefinitely if we continue to run up debt without the means to service it, to repay it. Yesterday we had yet another report of a balance of payments deficit of over $1 billion-the figure for the month of March. The total deficit in the balance of payments for the first nine months of this financial year is now equal to the whole deficit for the full 12 months of the preceding year-$10.4 billion. For month after month the Government has been predicting that the benefits of the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar during 1985 will begin to show up in a reduction in the balance of payments. It is interesting that the Government claims the devaluation of the Australian dollar to be a great benefit for Australia. In fact, after this devaluation Australia is 25 per cent the poorer in the eyes of the rest of the world now than it was 12 months ago. Anybody travelling overseas who finds that his dollar is worth only 75 per cent of what it was a year ago will understand this perfectly. But despite these problems, month after month the improvements have failed to appear and the Government has continued to punish home owners, farmers and small business with higher interest rates in a desperate struggle to maintain the value of the dollar even at its reduced rate. Meanwhile our overseas debt mounts inexorably. Our total overseas debt, public and private, has doubled from $35 billion to $70 billion over the last two years. The extent of this debt is brought home when we note that it represents $4,500 for each man, woman and child in Australia. It now takes over 40c out of every dollar of our export earnings to service this debt-that is, to meet interest charges and capital repayments. Government overseas debt, as opposed to private, has more than doubled under the Hawke Government, from $14 billion to $29 billion. Unlike private overseas borrowings, where the enterprises doing the borrowing earn money to service the loans, government borrowings place a direct burden on the taxpayer. Australia is like the family that borrows, say, $40,000 to add to the house and to buy a car, but instead of paying back $500 a month to the bank, it goes back each month to borrow another $500, thus adding to its debt. Like the big spending family that borrowed the $40,000 from the bank, we can feel good while we are doing the spending, but the day of reckoning is not so pleasant. The Hawke Government has been frittering away the benefits of the recovery, leaving us ill-equipped to face economic difficulties. Had the Hawke Government restricted its spending to the average annual increases of the seven Fraser years, we would have had a small Budgetary surplus this year instead of a deficit of $5 billion-and we would not be spending over $6.7 billion in interest charges on Federal debt, more than we spend on education, health or even our national defence. In our Federal Budget we are spending more on interest charges than we are on defending ourselves from external attack. No wonder we pay more tax than we ever have before in the postwar period. This financial year the Government will not even meet its own commitment with regard to taxation under its trilogy of promises on taxation, government spending and the Budget deficit. It has promised this year to ensure that taxation revenues will not rise beyond the 25 per cent of gross national product reached in the 1984-85 financial year. Yet a 1986-87 Budget strategy document produced for the Cabinet by the Treasurer and leaked to the Press shows that the Government will break its promise this year to the extent of $600m to $700m. Thus, it will increase by this amount the already record levels of taxation. All Australians this year will be paying more tax. The Government's propaganda machine, greatly expanded at taxpayers' expense, tells us every day how successful the Government has been at economic management. What in reality has been happening is that not has it been riding piggyback on top of the economic recovery which would have happened any way, but it has also been spending and borrowing at a rate beyond our capacity to pay. Its most trumpeted achievement, the creation of 600,000 jobs in three years, invites closer examination. During the 1979-81 economic recovery during the period of the Fraser Government, 465,000 new jobs were created without substantially increasing public expenditure or building up overseas debts. This time, during this recovery-and we are talking about parallel cycles within the business sector-about one-third of the increase in employment has been in the public sector, and therefore dependent on increased taxation and government charges. Private investment in industry has been much less significant during this economic cycle and it still lags very badly. As we all know, secure future employment will not be obtained through government spending, so this aspect of our economy, this overreliance on government spending to produce jobs, is very worrying. Also the level of unemployment we are left with is far too high. At the end of the Fraser Government recovery in September 1981 and before the world recession, the unemployment rate was 5.8 per cent, 2.2 percentage points lower than the current rate of 8 per cent. The Government likes to compare its present unemployment level with that at the height of the recession, but that is a false comparison. The fact is that unemployment under this Prime Minister has been higher than for all but the last five months of the 86 months of the Fraser period of office, and youth unemployment is still over 21 per cent. It is worth recalling that yesterday was the third anniversary of the conclusion of the National Economic Summit, at which the Prime Minister stated that the first objective of his Government was to arrest the explosion in unemployment and then move towards its steady reduction. Honourable members will remember that all the television cameras of Australia were focused on the speakers in this very chamber when the Prime Minister made this commitment on behalf of his Government. Also at the summit the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, who is also the National President of the Australian Labor Party, said that the overriding objective of the summit was `Jobs, jobs, jobs'. Three years down the line we still have an unemployment level of 8 per cent, and in the latest set of figures for March youth unemployment rose again to 21.8 per cent, the highest level since July 1985. In other words, there has been some minor improvement in unemployment figures during the period of economic recovery, but now unemployment figures have started to rise again, and are still more than two percentage points higher than they were at the end of the economic recovery during the Fraser period of office. Judging this Government, therefore, by its own lights, I believe that it has clearly failed to tackle the problem of unemployment. Its Priority One program of youth traineeships, publicised at monumental public expense by the Prime Minister earlier this year, with television appearances and youth phone-ins and other such gimmicks, is an abject failure. The 10,000 traineeships promised by July this year have simply failed to appear; the target is nowhere near being met. Under the dead hand of its senior partner in government, the trade union movement, this Government has failed even to begin to dis- mantle the restrictive practices and dated industrial frameworks that are keeping Australia's youth in the dole queue. Of all the Government's broken promises-and they are legion-this is the most heartbreaking. All the signs are there of an increase in unemployment in the course of this year. For example, the situation in the housing industry, despite the panic measures taken recently, is still very serious. In January the number of loans approved for the purchase of newly built houses was the lowest on record. The number of home loans approved by the major institutions has fallen by over 30 per cent since July last year. The motor industry is another important indicator of economic activity and the health of our Australian economy. In the first three months of this year passenger vehicle sales were down by over 20 per cent on those of last year. The combined effects of high interest rates, depreciation of the dollar, new emission controls, an increase in sales tax and the disastrous new fringe benefits tax on company vehicles are widely expected to send motor vehicle sales diving further throughout 1986. It is estimated by the industry and by independent economists that some 10,000 jobs will be lost in the motor vehicle industry this year. High interest rates-the highest real rates, after allowing for inflation, since the Great Depression-caused by the Government's over-reliance on monetary policy to prop up the Australian dollar and its inability or unwillingness to cut government spending and restrain trade union wage demands, are biting heavily into rural industry and small business activity. They are increasingly halting investment and sending business broke. There is a real risk of the economy being thrust into recession Another major factor facing Australia this year is a deterioration in the terms of trade. This means that the prices that we can obtain on world markets for our rural and mineral products are falling. We have to run faster just to stay still. Every rural producer will understand this situation only too well. The drop in world oil prices will also have its effect on our coal, gas and oil exports. Of course, in Australia we always have to worry about drought. There is already evidence of drought in many regions of Australia and it is causing considerable concern. A very large number of rural districts have been declared drought areas by State governments and I think that this is a factor to which people ought to devote serious attention in the coming months. In summary, Australia faces more difficult times this year, some of which are of our own creation and others are due to uncontrollable factors. It is a time when we should have a feeling of security arising from our prudent management of our resources during a period of recovery and growth. This is clearly not the case. We are heavily over-borrowed overseas and our balance of payments is heavily in deficit. Australia's inflation rate is, at 8.2 per cent, twice the average rate of our major trading partners and over five times that of Japan. The inflation rate in West Germany has now dropped below one per cent, and that is before the effect of the fall in world oil prices. Other countries competing with us are taking advantage of the world-wide fall in oil prices to pass on the full price reduction to consumers and producers, thereby reducing their already low inflation rate even further. By contrast, the Hawke Government has taken back, through extra tax at the petrol pump, 8c of the 15c fall which the public should have received if the full price drop had been passed on. That is hardly a sensible action for a country already suffering twice the rate of inflation of its competitors. The Government has also committed itself to adjusting wages upwards in line with prices and to adding an additional 3 per cent under the productivity superannuation deal which was agreed to by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. On the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's past history, the possibility of the Commission rejecting this proposal is quite remote. The Government has also introduced a new package of tax measures which is anti-entrepreneurial and will discourage new business ventures, yet our new private business investment has still not recovered from the levels to which it fell during the period of recession. A great deal of the expansion of the economy during the recovery over the past few years has been due to private housing investment and to government investment, whereas business investment in new jobs and new enterprises has still not recovered to the level that it was at before the 1982-83 recession. The Government has not conducted itself well during the period of recovery. It has not set aside sufficient of Australia's produce to sustain us during periods of difficulty. Parliament has been told how brilliantly the Government has been performing, when its performance has been based on the artificial and risky stimuli of government spending and excessive borrowing. What should we do to try to get Australia's economy back on a satisfactory course? Unfortunately, we cannot undo overnight the damage that has been caused by the Australian Labor Party's first two big spending Budgets. We cannot turn back instantaneously the effects of the excessive influence of the trade union leadership over this Government. However, there are several things that we can do to get Australia back of a sensible course. The Opposition has put forward proposals consistently over a period, but the audience has been limited. Now, as the economy moves into a more difficult phase, our voices are more likely to be heard. We have proposed a five point plan. Firstly, there should be an early mini-Budget to cut back on government spending and make a start on reducing the Government's deficits and borrowings. Secondly, the Government should make an urgent application to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to defer until further notice the so-called productivity case and should call on the unions to cease industrial action in support of superannuation claims. Thirdly, the Government should take action before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to obtain full discounting of wages to offset the inflationary effects of last year's devaluation of the Australian dollar. Fourthly, the tax package should be revised to remove all the anti-business and anti-rural elements that will have the effect of inhibiting investment and depressing economic activity. Fifthly, there should be a significant relaxation of foreign investment controls in order to encourage equity investment and to reduce our dependence on overseas debt. These are the urgent actions that are required to get the economy on to a better course and under the influence of a more balanced economic policy. The Opposition would then be in a position to address some of the more fundamental problems of the economy, such as the inflexibility of the labour market and the excessive regulation of business. That is a lot to do, but at least we would be able to make a start. However, considerable doubts are emerging as to whether the Government has the leadership and resolve to face up to making these important decisions. The Prime Minister is exerting no authority in Cabinet over the expenditure cutting process. Only $200m to $300m in cuts have so far been agreed out of the Government's own target of $1.4 billion. The Treasurer has gone overseas for two weeks at a critical time in the discussions. The gang of seven big-spending Ministers, led by the left wing Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), has been openly rebellious against spending cuts. Mr Howe publicly attacked the Government's economic strategy and referred to the Government as `a mule'-that is, having no offspring-yet he received no rebuke from the Prime Minister. A public dispute has been raging between the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) over the balance of payments crisis, with the latter saying that the economic strategy being pursued by the Treasurer is based on a total misunderstanding of Australian industry. Again the Prime Minister has done nothing to resolve this serious dispute on a fundamental issue between senior Ministers. The incipient revolt among groups of Ministers and the Caucus over the Government's decision-making process-for example, over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd decision-the interest rate ceiling decision and the Builders Labourers Federation deregistration, is now further fuelled by the revelation that the original decision to tighten monetary policy and send interest rates through the roof has not even been discussed by the Cabinet. Unless the Government pulls itself together, introduces a mini-Budget and changes its stance on wages policy before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, we will all be in major financial trouble by the end of the year. Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I move an amendment to the second reading motion for Appropriation Bill (No. 3), as follows: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (12) draws attention to the failure of the Government to fulfil its promises- (a) to reduce interest rates; (b) to bring the rate of inflation down below 5%; (c) to hold taxation down at least to the level of the 1984-85 financial year as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product; (d) not to introduce a capital gains tax; (e) not to raise the interest rate ceiling on housing loans, and (f) to bring about sustained reductions in unemployment particularly youth unemployment; (2) notes the deterioration in the Australian economy as evidenced by the continuing balance of payments crisis, an inflation rate twice that of our trading partners, excessively high interest rates, rising unemployment, lagging private investment in new productive capacity and the severe downturn in the housing and motor industries, and (3) calls on the Government to arrest the alarming deterioration in the balance of payments, the threat of a further fall in the value of the Australian dollar and severe hardship for Australian families by taking urgent steps to- (a) introduce a mini-budget in May to reduce Government expenditures to take effect from the beginning of the 1986-87 financial year, and thereby reduce government borrowing; (b) make an application to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to defer the productivity wage case and to discount fully the indexation of wages for the effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar; (c) withdraw the anti-business and anti-rural elements of the tax package of 19 September 1985 that has the effect of inhibiting investment and depressing economic activity, and (d) significantly relax foreign investment controls to encourage job-creating equity investment in Australia. If we follow that plan we can get out of this appalling economic mess into which the Hawke Government is increasingly leading us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before calling the next speaker, I remind honourable members that the honourable member for Scullin was recently elected and he succeeds the very distinguished former member for Scullin and Speaker of the House, Dr Jenkins. Honourable members will appreciate that it is the honourable member's maiden speech and I am sure that they will extend to him the usual courtesies on such an occasion. I call the honourable member for Scullin. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(8.34) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. While some time has transpired since Madam Speaker's elevation to the speakership, I feel that it is still appropriate for me to commence my remarks by offering my congratulations to her as her elevation to her high office and my arrival in this place were both made possible as a consequence of the resignation of my predecessor. May she have a long and successful term as Speaker. I make the observation that at times I have been dismayed at the way in which this House has demonstrated its co-operation towards her, but I add that she has certainly served her first two months of office with distinction. It is my hope that, in the future, the House displays to her the high degree of respect which her office so richly deserves. Mr Deputy Speaker, would you also please convey my congratulations to the Chairman of Committees. The electorate of Scullin was first created in 1955 to commemorate James Henry Scullin, Leader of the Parliamentary Australian Labor Party from 1928 to 1935 and, during the period 1929 to 1932, the fourth Labor Prime Minister of Australia. The boundaries of the division of Scullin have meandered the northern suburbs of Melbourne but the seat has never lost its fundamental working class nature. This is appropriate as, except for one term as the member for rural Corangamite, James Scullin represented the working class electorate of Yarra, which included the suburbs of Richmond, Collingwood and parts of Fitzroy. The first member for Scullin, the late Ted Peters, was a great Labor stalwart. During his time as the member the electorate encompassed Carlton, Fitzroy and Brunswick. Ted Peters was a member of this House from 1949 to 1969 and he served the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party with distinction during a most tumultuous period of its history. At the time of the great ructions of 1955 he was the only member of the then executive to remain with the Australian Labor Party. On the occasion of the condolence motion of this House upon the death of Ted Peters in 1980, the then member for Wills, Gordon Bryant, observed: Ted Peters always showed exceptional personal and moral courage, and political strength in standing his ground. He was a person who over the years became more radical than he had been in his youth. It is a pity that a member such as Ted Peters should spend his 20 years in this place on the Opposition benches. Mr Hollis —You won't. Mr JENKINS —I thank the honourable member. At the 1969 redistribution the boundaries of the Scullin electorate became centred upon the suburbs of Preston and Reservoir. At that election my predecessor and father, Dr Harry Jenkins, was elected as the second member for Scullin. My fellow members are in a better position to comment on the service which my predecessor gave to this House. Suffice for me to say that he is highly regarded in the electorate, having first worked in the area as a local general practitioner, then as a local State member, followed by his 16 years in this House. In an article in the Melbourne Herald during the run-up to the by-election, a local resident, who was asked to comment upon my prospects, was quoted as saying: I think the kid'll do a good job if he's anywhere near as cunning and shrewd as his old man. Of course, to bring some balance to the situation, another resident commented: The Labor Party could stand silly Dave out this way and still win. I contend that silly Dave did not get preselection! All this aside, I am extremely proud to have succeeded my father as the member for Scullin and, more importantly, I am extremely proud to stand here today as the third Labor member for Scullin. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to thank again the many Party members and supporters who came from all parts of Victoria and interstate and worked so hard during the by-election campaign and who assisted in making the Party's outstanding victory possible, ensuring that the people of Scullin so decisively demonstrated their continuing support for the Hawke Labor Government. I would like also to acknowledge publicly the support given to me by my wife, Michele, and my two sons, Benjamin and Emlyn. Without their patience and understanding I would not be here today. Since the redistribution of 1984 the electorate of Scullin has straddled the major portions of two municipalities on Melbourne's northern urban fringe-the City of Broadmeadows and the Shire of Whittlesea. The electorate includes the suburbs of Glenroy, Hadfield, Fawkner, Campbellfield, Jacana and Upfield from Broadmeadows, and Thomastown, Lalor, parts of Epping and Bundoora from the Shire of Whittlesea. Both these fine municipalities, with their Labor majorities, have displayed their ability and willingness to co-operate with both State and Federal governments in many joint initiatives-such things as successful community employment projects, provision of aged care and children's services and, in the traditional areas, the provision of physical infrastructure. Often the economic value of the provision of infrastructure is overlooked. As the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) said this morning, this Government has a fine record in providing record levels of road funding. The municipalities of both Broadmeadows and Whittlesea have characteristics indicative of their many needs. Broadmeadows has vast areas of public housing, badly planned and set up, with little or no support services. The Shire of Whittlesea is the fastest growing municipality in metropolitan Melbourne. The rapid growth has brought with it the difficulty of finding resources to provide essential services, further compounded by the growing expectation of local government to be involved in the provision of a widening range of services. I am proud to add that I have served the Shire of Whittlesea as a councillor since 1979 and I had the honour of serving one term as Shire President. I therefore note with interest that a large number of my colleagues on both sides of the House have served as either councillors or aldermen prior to entering this place. Unashamedly, I bring with me a strong commitment to the further strengthening of local government and an understanding of the need to ensure that local government is recognised as a partner and treated as such in the planning and implementation of beneficial community projects and services. It has been my experience that too often local government is dismissed as some form of underlining subservient to other spheres of government. This serves only to denigrate the important contribution made by local government. That is not to say that local government does not need to ensure that it keeps its own performance and relevance under review. I am saddened that in my home State of Victoria the present process of restructure has deteriorated to an emotional and emotive free for all, with the opponents of restructure not willing to allow logical debate and discussion of the various options open. I welcome the statement made last week by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) announcing the Government's decision to continue with the program of untied grants to local government. Mr Gear —A good Minister. Mr JENKINS —He is a good Minister, indeed. I especially applaud the emphasis that the principal objective of the new arrangements will be to provide financial assistance to those councils most disadvantaged with respect to their ability to raise revenue and provide services. Another important aspect of the announcement which has been well received is the guarantee that in real terms the overall funding will be at least equal to the present level of funding. Without the important untied grants from the Commonwealth, municipalities such as Broadmeadows and Whittlesea would have to forgo many services and forestall their present increasing role in the area of community development. One extremely important topic I would like to raise tonight is the Government's intention to provide 20,000 full-time child care places between 1985 and the end of 1988. To many families quality child care is a fundamental requirement, not only through choice but in many cases through necessity, and I refer to single parents and families whose financial circumstances require both parents to take employment. At present, within the Scullin electorate there are only two community-based child care centres, providing 92 places. They are supplemented by family day care schemes and four privately run child care centres. With over 7,500 children under five years of age, the demand far outstrips the available places. The provision of child care is an important aspect of this Government's commitment to promoting equal employment opportunity. I mentioned earlier the need for proper consultation with local government in regard to policy implementation. The Victorian experience with the introduction of new child care centres last year and the subsequent modification of funding arrangements, which were implemented at the start of this month, is an example of the need for more adequate discussions by all spheres of government and interested parties to ensure that all are aware of what is required. Much of the confusion that arose was in part as a result of misinformation that was bandied around and was in part due to difficulties that the Municipal Association of Victoria as an umbrella body had in co-ordinating the individual councils. To the credit of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), the Office of Child Care, local government, and the relevant State authorities, a successful consultative mechanism has been put in place. This group will review the performance of the new arrangements with regard to both the fee structure and quality of service provided. In the meantime, the Government is now in a position to continue to facilitate additional places, in a climate where all involved are aware of what is required of them. One of the most striking aspects of the demography of the Scullin electorate is the high percentage-some 38 per cent-of the population born overseas; an outstanding majority of these people having been born in non-English speaking countries. Some 69 per cent of the population either was born overseas or has one or both parents who were born overseas. The major ethnic communities represented are Italian, Greek, Macedonian and Turkish. In addition, there are many other communities with smaller numbers. These migrants have made a major contribution to the development of Australia. In passing, I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) for his statement last week announcing a modest increase in the annual migrant intake. This decision is based on sound economic assessment of the positive effect of such levels of intake, and it should be welcomed. It should be remembered that the Government must continue to be alert to the special needs of migrants and ethnic communities in general. In particular, I would like to turn my attention to one aspect of this matter, and that is care of aged migrants. Many of the migrants who moved to areas in my electorate, such as Thomastown, Lalor and Fawkner, came to Australia as part of the post-war immigration surge. They are now approaching or entering retirement. Last month the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs released a study entitled `Research Findings: Community and Institutional Care for Aged Migrants in Australia'. This detailed study made many pertinent points about the special problems encountered by the ethnic aged and their special needs. The findings showed that the ethnic elderly were more inclined to favour community-based facilities rather than institutionalised care. Fortunately, this Government's general policies for aged care support this notion, and much will be done through initiatives such as the home and community care program to increase access to community-based care. As the report indicates, we must be careful not to provide and deliver services which lack cultural sensitivity and diversity. To avoid this problem, co-operative action by governments and ethnic communities will be required. Another matter raised by the report is the lack of knowledge about the services available. Much of the problem is caused by information not being made available in the various community languages of the target groups. Therefore, the importance of the ethnic media, especially print and radio, must be emphasised. Ethnic radio and television must continue to be supported. Migrant resource centres are also important in the dissemination of information, and they warrant our continued support. As the number of ethnic aged rapidly increases, government agencies and community groups would be well advised to use the research findings to ensure that services they provide are of relevance and meet the needs of the groups to which they are targeted. Another topic I wish to raise is directly relevant to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) which, amongst many other things, allocates additional money for compensation in various government departments. From my experience before coming to this place, having worked in the Public Service and having visited regional offices of various departments in my electorate, I contend that a good portion of this compensation relates to repetition strain injury-RSI-which within the Public Service if unchecked will reach epidemic proportions. In recognition of the increasing costs as a result of RSI, a task force of the Public Service Board was set up to investigate the problem. Last year, after thoroughly studying the situation, the task force made a series of recommendations. A number of these recommendations were based on the need for change in work practices and arrangements, by way of altering work patterns and paying more attention to the ergonomic requirements of work stations. These types of changes can be implemented only with proper consultation between management and Public Service staff associations, that is, the relevant unions. There is a need to emphasise this point not only as fundamental in the implementation of industrial democracy but as a practical way to achieve solutions. For the Government's part, I hope that economic restraint will not be used as an excuse not to continue the speedy implementation of sound occupational health and safety measures such as the provision of ergonomic furniture and adequate levels of staffing to allow for appropriate rest periods for keyboard staff. In the general area of occupational health, the Government has a fine record. The establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is a major step forward. The Commission, with its participation of government, employer groups and unions, has an important task in working to heighten the awareness of health and safety issues within the community and, through this, in making Australian work places healthy and safe. It is a pity that the time allotted for me to speak is so relatively short, especially when one has such an attentive audience. For that and for showing me the usual courtesies, I thank the House. There are many other matters that I would like to canvass but I will address myself to only a couple more. Peace and disarmament are important topics: Witness the many people in the streets of our capital cities and at other venues on Palm Sunday. In this, the International Year of Peace, Australia should take the opportunity to use the various world forums at her disposal to push for greater understanding between nations. Such events as those that occurred in the Mediterranean today are very distressing, especially to our young people who live in horror and fear of possible nuclear holocausts as a result of escalating world tension. Australia, as it approaches its bicentenary, has the opportunity to exert its independence on the world stage. This acquisition of independence is very much a gradual process. I was interested when researching James Scullin's life to read of the difficulties of the 1930s when he, as an Australian Prime Minister, recommended our first Australian Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and encountered much opposition from a patronising British Government. Fortunately things have changed, albeit gradually. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Victorian Government on its social justice strategy. I join with many others in urging the Federal Government to develop a national social justice strategy. Much has been done by this Government to engender economic recovery, and this is widely acknowledged except perhaps by people such as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) tonight. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to build on this sound economic strategy and work for equity in and access to resources for the disadvantaged and needy. We must ensure that, in sustaining this economic growth, steps are not taken by way of spending constraint that affect the lower paid and underprivileged in our community. In my electorate, which in various areas and using various criteria is highly disadvantaged, there is a great need to protect those who find themselves entrapped in the tentacles of poverty. The many people to whom emergency relief has become a necessary source of additional income, instead of a source of assistance in times of crisis due to unexpected emergencies and expenses, look to this Government to use this economic growth actively to their advantage. Thus, in conclusion, I leave the House with this very apt quote from the writings of James Henry Scullin, the words of which are inscribed on his memorial. They read: Justice and humanity demand interference whenever the weak are being crushed by the strong. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(8.54) —I commence my comments on this debate on the Appropri- ation Bills, firstly, by congratulating the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) on the speech that he has just given. Certainly, he is a very fine son and heir for the seat of Scullin in all aspects and I wish him well for the future. Tonight, I wish to address my remarks to the appropriations relating to the Australian Federal Police within the Department of the Special Minister of State. In doing so, I wish to raise several matters of concern in relation to the resources available to the Australian Federal Police and their subsequent capacity to perform properly their national law enforcement role. Furthermore, I intend also to deal with related issues that go beyond the immediate issue of AFP resources and which have much wider implications for government revenue and expenditure. At the outset, it is appropriate to remind the House of what this Government perceived as the role of the Australian Federal Police before I assess the capacity of the AFP to execute that role. I, therefore, quote from the statement of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) of 15 August 1985, determining AFP objectives and priorities as a direction under section 13 (2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. He stated: The Australian Federal Police Act 1979, section 8, charges the AFP to undertake the following functions: (a) provision of police services in relation to the Australian Capital Territory; (b) provision of police services in relation to- (1) laws of the Commonwealth; (2) property of the Commonwealth (including Commonwealth places) and property of authorities of the Commonwealth; and (3) the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests; and (c) anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the foregoing functions. Further, the statement defines the role of the AFP as follows: The Government sees the long-term role of the AFP as that of an effective Federal investigative body, functioning as the Commonwealth's primary law enforcement agency. Of particular interest to us in this debate on the appropriations is the significant priority given in that statement to fraud. It is in fact ranked third out of eight clearly defined priorities. I quote from the statement: Large scale fraud against Commonwealth revenue. To maintain an appropriate capability to investigate large-scale fraud against the Commonwealth revenue (for example, in the social security, taxation and health payments areas). On the matter of fraud, the House will recall my asking the Special Minister of State on 13 February 1986 the following question: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Can the Minister confirm that the report on fraud against the Commonwealth, commissioned following the Review of Australian Federal Police Resources, details precisely the $300m per annum that is lost through social security fraud and the fact that 1,000 new fraud cases are being perpetrated each week against the Government, which is now proposing amnesty, albeit the reduced amnesty operating from today? How does the Minister reconcile the report with recent statements made by the Minister for Social Security suggesting that social security fraud is not a serious problem? Will he table the report? The House will no doubt remember that the Minister declined to answer the question which led to a very vigorous exchange between the two of us. This is not surprising given the embarrassing nature of the report to which I referred. The report to which I refer, the report on fraud against the Commonwealth, actually went to the Special Minister of State in January this year and was signed by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Major-General Ron Grey, and the permanent secretary of the Department of the Special Minister of State, Mr Darcy McGarr. The report is apparently most exhaustive and was commissioned after the quite separate review of AFP resources which demonstrated a significant lack of capacity within the AFP to perform its role. The total estimated fraud against the Commonwealth arrived at in the report is a staggering figure of $4 billion. The estimated $300m of social security fraud referred to in my earlier question to the Special Minister of State is in fact part of that $4 billion figure. The remainder is primarily fraud against government income, most especially customs revenue plus company and personal income tax. It is also worth pointing out that fraud against various forms of government expenditure is also detailed in the report. The report also reflects very poorly upon the performances of the two major bodies involved, that is, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Customs Service. One of the principal reasons for the poor performance of those two bodies is that investigative work against fraud by them is beyond the competence of the public servants to whom responsibility has been given on these matters. It is also worth noting that as yet no reaction or plan has been formulated in response to the report, which is now several months old. I find it quite extraordinary that a government with such severe financial problems as this Government has at the moment has not acted on a possible solution to those problems. No action by the Australian Federal Police has been ordered in relation to the report. In any case it does not have the resources to take such action. The significant shortfall in Australian Federal Police resources was very clearly identified and detailed in the earlier review of AFP resources conducted during 1985. Since that time this Government has done very little to redress the problems and shortages detailed in that review of AFP resources. It is also worth noting that the Government has covered its inaction in this area by misleading the community about the actual strength of the Australian Federal Police. In various reports this Government has claimed that the staffing level of the Australian Federal Police is 3,034. This figure is based on a device which the AFP uses called the average operative staffing level, or AOSL. It is not unlike the implicit price deflator we used to hear about in relation to the defence estimates. It sounded very good but no one really knew what it meant. It is no wonder that Disraeli, on one occasion, was reported as saying: `There are three kinds of lies-lies, damn lies and statistics'. He was right because the actual number of police in the AFP as of 14 March 1986 was 2,580. This is 454 AFP members below the so-called AOSL level of 3,034. I call upon this Government to take action immediately on the $4 billion fraud report and to provide the AFP with the resources necessary to do that. The extra resources devoted to the AFP would be more than recovered through action taken against the various areas of fraud which are so well defined in the $4 billion report. This would also end the erosion of the national law enforcement role of the AFP that this Government has so systematically embarked upon. The $1 billion estimated cost for the quite useless Australia Card-it is a sledge-hammer to crack a nut-would be better allocated, in part, to the AFP so that it can properly do its job. I think that we can view the proposed Australia Card only as an absurd and unnecessary device to cover the whole population in order to scrutinise the dishonest few. It is a fact that, based on experience elsewhere, the dishonest few would abuse the card anyway. This has certainly happened in the United States with the social security card. The Mafia has taken over much of the fraud against the card. It is expected that the joint committee of this Parliament examining the Australia Card proposition is likely to recommend against its implementation because of its serious reservations about its value. Apparently it sees more merit in the systematic computerisation and integration of the birth, death and marriage certificate files held by the registries in all States. I think that they are most commendable directions for the committee to be heading in. I conclude my remarks by again calling on the Special Minister of State to table the $4 billion fraud report and, more importantly, to take action in relation to it. Failure to do so is gross neglect of his responsibilities as Special Minister of State to ensure that the laws of this Commonwealth are fully enforced by the national law enforcement agency, that is, the Australian Federal Police. Failure to take urgent action on the report is also an act of neglect by this Government at large to protect adequately the revenue and expenditure of this great Commonwealth. Both failure to enforce national laws and failure to protect revenue and expenditure are a betrayal of the national interest of the Australian people. Therefore, I trust that we will have no further procrastination by the Minister and the Government on this vital matter. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(9.06) —Debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86 gives us a chance to consider where the economy is at present and where it is going. We are at about the beginning of the second stage of economic policy. The first stage, of course, included great achievements of economic growth, employment growth, lower inflation and improvements in the social wage. The second stage begins with substantial difficulties. This year the current account deficit is likely to be at least 5 per cent of gross domestic product or 12 per cent. The growth in Australia's overseas debt, from about $7 billion in 1979-80 to over $60 billion now, has increased the difficulty of reducing this deficit because of the cost of debt servicing. The historically high interest rates are used to attract capital from overseas and are ameliorating the balance of payments problem in the short term at the cost of intensifying the difficulty of achieving a long term solution. The more capital which is attracted now the greater the invisible payments deficit in the future and the greater the trade surplus needed to achieve current account balance. As well, over 600,000 people are still unemployed, a massive level by post-war standards, involving enormous human suffering and economic waste. Of course the number of unemployed has come down very sharply but it is not sensible not to take account of the present level. Tightening of fiscal policy to depress demand for imports would reduce growth in economic activity and so the growth of employment opportunities, which must be the Government's highest priority. So despite this severely constrained situation some additional constructive policies are available, and it is on those I wish to concentrate tonight. One step is to urge other countries to reflate their economies. A co-ordinated global expansion would lift economic growth rates in all countries and provide a general stimulus to the volume of Australia's imports and exports. Each of the countries which have gone for growth in the 1980s-Australia is one and France and the United States are others-has found that without complementary expansionary policies by its trading partner countries its current account deficit rises and constrains continued growth. Japan's recent depreciation corrects a major currency imbalance but a more expansionary macroeconomic stance there would increase growth rates of output and imports faster. West Germany is another country that could afford to expand at present because it has a substantial current account surplus and an extremely low inflation rate. Other countries in western Europe could also adopt similar policies because of their current favourable situations. If the United States were also discouraged from pursuing mechanistic expenditure cutting, the combined effect would be a global expansion of the rate of economic growth. Another policy which would contribute to that goal is renewed lending and aid to developing countries so that they can expand their imports. One current development that provides a favourable setting for those policies is the fall in oil prices, and that provides the opportunity for much more expansionary economic policies which would have, as I have said, the effect of stimulating growth everywhere. A number of policies are needed to reform the international monetary system and would contribute to the same goal. Amongst those would be a global financial conference, which the American President said in his State of the Union message that he was seriously considering. Increased lending by international financial institutions or a new issue of special drawing rights would also contribute to the same goal. Within Australia a third step which would have a favourable impact would be to encourage the Reserve Bank of Australia to intervene more actively in the foreign exchange market. Appropriately timed, selective action using Australia's unnecessarily large currency reserves would discourage further downward pressure on the exchange rate. Such action could be considered when the current account balance starts to improve. All countries intervene to some extent in their foreign exchange markets. The only question is how much to intervene. A strong case can be made for more active intervention by the Australian Reserve Bank. The Government intervenes by the use of monetary policy. The tight monetary policy of recent months has been aimed at keeping up interest rates and so attracting overseas capital. A more direct approach might be more cost effective. A fourth step would be to continue with the steady relaxation of monetary policy that has been begun in the last month or two, allowing a further reduction in interest rates and assessing whether it really made any difference to capital inflow. The difference between interest rates in Australia and those overseas is very substantial. Perhaps that differential could be narrowed. If so, there would be great benefit to the whole Australian economy, not only to private sector investment but also to housing and consumption. The large devaluation of the Australian dollar since the beginning of 1985 is providing a window of opportunity for Australian manufacturing to re-establish competitive production. So a fifth step would be to involve ourselves in more active manufacturing industry policy, possibly including a targeted, selective industry policy which would assist this development. This could be applied in industries such as industrial equipment, knowledge-intensive machine tools, whole plant construction, heavy industry, motor vehicles and white goods. One of the most important elements of manufacturing industry policy is to establish linkages between industries. There might be scope for using the public sector more effectively by expanding the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation, for example. A sixth approach to coping with the current problems in the medium term would be to increase the role of the public sector. Setting a fixed proportion of national income for public expenditure constraints the Government's capacity to apply effective counter-cyclical policies. The Commonwealth's responsibilities for macro-economic stabilisation requires the use of expansionary policies when growth is slow. Such constraints also severely limit the opportunity to use the public sector inventively to stimulate activity, fill gaps, provide services or contribute to equity. No Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development government has achieved in the three years up to 1983 what we are attempting. Only two-those of Britain and Germany-stopped the public sector share from rising. Therefore, we should be careful about setting too tight targets and should avoid applying rigid formulae in the future. We should allow the public sector to play its proper role in stabilisation, stimulating growth and so on. A fresh approach to the public sector would contribute to the provision of needed services, providing employment opportunities and increasing the rate of economic growth. Australia has one of the smallest public sectors in the Western world and this may be one reason for the deterioration of our relative economic performance during the last 30 years. Many activities can be most cost effectively undertaken in the public sector. Public investment in infrastructure is essential to economic efficiency. Efficient transport and communications increase productivity, for example. Expansion of the public sector gives the community greater control over resources. One of the main determinants of whether a function should be in the public or private sector is where it could be provided most efficiently at minimum cost. That will often be in the public sector, where there will be no abnormal profits through the exploitation of market power. Another group of policies relates to distribution. An indirect benefit of distribution from rich to poor is that consumption demand increases, stimulating economic activity. Employment growth is the most important means of reducing poverty but redistributive social security, taxation and community service policies also contribute to increasing the rate of economic growth through the multiplier effect of increased spending. I have outlined what I think is a comprehensive strategy for stimulating growth in the next three years. That will be a much more difficult task than it was in the first three years of the term of this government. Therefore, there is a need for innovative activity. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(9.16) —The purpose of my speech is not to recite a litany of wrong decisions made and policies put forth by the current Government but to ask why the increases in the Budget appropriations sought are cost and price increases since the Budget. In the second reading speeches of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86, the Minister speaks of the need to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1985-86. Whilst I can understand the need for additional revenue to be paid out by the Government because of court and tribunal decisions, I cannot but question other factors under the control of the Government which have led to the additional cost in these Bills. We, as a nation, are in a process of change, of restructuring our economy from trade-based minerals and farming exports to manufacturing and servicing. There is no need to be afraid of this change and restructuring if we see it for what it is: An opportunity to make our country stronger and more prosperous in the fastest growing region of the world-the Asian Pacific region. As a nation, we have a comparative advantage in the production of medium technology products such as agricultural, manufacturing and mining machinery, as well as the supply of services, including education and training. These services are required by many of the Asian countries to further their economic development and industrial and social infrastructure. Our ability to exploit these opportunities will be critical to our economic performance during the remainder of this decade. However, to take advantage of this situation we must be prepared to open up our markets to regional trade. A start towards progressive reductions in protection is a vital ingredient in a medium term strategy for building Australia's future prosperity. The process of opening up our markets to regional trade should not be one way. Australia could benefit significantly from a liberalisation of trade in agricultural and processed or semi-processed minerals in return for freer trade in manufactures. To achieve this, we will need to see a resurgence of investment, led primarily by domestic, not international, influences. This resurgence has to be based on confidence in the profitability and competitiveness of manufacturing and service industries. We need to build on our domestic markets and at the same time take advantage of growing opportunities in regional markets. For our businessmen, large and small, nothing is more important than securing adequate business returns from their investment. Investment returns have improved significantly over the last year, from record lows in 1982-83. However, they remain below the levels prevailing in the 1960s and early 1970s. To improve upon investment returns flexibility is needed in several areas: Wages, industrial policy and government spending. It is widely accepted that the prices and incomes accord may have contributed to a reduction in the incidence of industrial disputation over the past three years and to a degree assisted in restraining wages growth. Nevertheless, wage costs must be stringently contained if Australia's inflation rate is to be pulled back into line with international trends. The accord mark 2 as it stands is not a sufficiently strong anti-inflationary instrument to ensure that inflation will come down. Nor is it flexible enough to allow changes in our standard of living following adverse movements in our terms of trade and the real exchange rate depreciation. The current push for productivity-based increases in superannuation benefits is inappropriate in our economic situation. The fundamental imbalances in the economy have to be corrected before any productivity distribution can reasonably be considered. It can be argued that the benefits of productivity increases achieved thus far in our economy have already been distributed in the form of lower price increases and/or in the creation of new jobs. If these labor costs are not contained, two consequences will result. First, inflationary pressures will increase and profitable investment and job prospects will be reduced. Secondly, a reduction in business cash flow will cause greater business demand for borrowing through the capital market resulting in higher interest charges. I repeat: Productivity growth is the key part to increased real economic growth and rising living standards. Our industrial policy area needs greater flexibility to maintain this growth in our economy. The Government has taken the first step towards this by floating the Australian dollar and deregulating the financial markets as well as restructuring the motor vehicle industry. However, other areas need to be considered to provide greater competition, thereby taking advantage of our current market trends. Two industries which fall into this category are transport and communications. The two-airline policy is restrictive and not competitive. The communications industry is monopolistic and favours those with the most financial punch to make a running for new licences. These two sectors are vital to a more dynamic economy because of the spin-off into other areas. I call upon the Government to consider this proposal. Following this proposal, the Hawke Government needs to give the private sector more incentive, for it is in the private sector that our economic strength lies. However, because of the high interest rates prevailing the Government has in effect crippled the private sector to the point that private investment did not provide any stimulus to economic growth in the December 1985 quarter. A recent survey by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation found a number of manufacturers are planning to cut capital expenditure, employment and output levels over the next 12 months. The high cost of obtaining finance has also led businessmen to forecast a cut in investment on buildings, plant and equipment. The declining value of the dollar has not been translated in increased levels of production and investment. Economic forecasts are suggesting the economy is likely to turn down further by mid-year. Our current accounts figure is almost 25 per cent higher than Budget estimates, heading for a record $13 billion, providing proof that the downturn in the private sector has already commenced. Yet, the Government knows that economic recovery is crucial for ensuring a solid growth performance in the lead-up to the next Federal election. Therefore, it is imperative for the Government to follow its own Economic Planning Advisory Council advice and budget for spending cuts. According to EPAC, cuts in government spending are required in the short term to head off an upward spiral in interest payments which add to our debt burden. EPAC also claims that public sector borrowing is in danger of increasing at an unsustainable rate and has called for a reduction in borrowings over time. Such a strategy would reduce real interest rates without adding to tax rates or inflationary pressures. However, this restraint must be across the board involving both the Commonwealth and State governments. EPAC notes in its report that public sector outlays have outstripped receipts at an increasing rate for several decades. By the end of 1985-86, gross debt is expected to rise to around 45 per cent of gross domestic product, but if public sector borrowings continue unabated this figure could rise to around 60 per cent of GDP in the next 10 to 15 years. A debt service rate of 25 per cent is regarded as high by international standards. Therefore, the States must be persuaded to reduce the growth of their taxes, expenditure and borrowings significantly in order to contribute to reduced pressure on the credit market and hence interest rates. Improving the cost efficiency of State government services through rationalisation of State and Federal programs would be a worthwhile project, leading to more efficient use of available resources. The elimination of duplication on State and Federal levels would be the obvious starting point. Education, housing, health and transport are areas in which the Commonwealth could hand over significant powers and authority to the States. This would have a dual effect on curtailing expenditure on the bureaucratic level and at the same time give the States more financial responsibility for the running of their departments. Our nation needs less government imposition, not more. Our current high interest rates have had an adverse affect on all sectors of our economy but none more so than the housing industry. I pause to congratulate the Government-it has done one decent thing in government-on its decision to adopt the Opposition's housing interest rates policy. By this wise move it has saved the jobs of 50,000 Australians, provided for an estimated additional 33,000 jobs, and given more people the opportunity of home ownership. As well, this has increased the estimated housing starts by 7 per cent to 130,000 for 1986-87. However, in reality the Government has just moved sideways to accommodate the inordinately high interest rates pressure on the housing industry. It must now begin to move positively towards reducing interest rates across the board. The first step is to initiate a tight fiscal policy so interest rates begin falling. Next, the Hawke-Keating Government could seriously consider reversing its regressive capital gains tax and negative gearing policy which has lead to a disastrous decline in private investment in the housing sector. If this Government does not take this action, fortunately for the nation the Opposition will soon be back on the Treasury benches. The flow-on effects of these two moves are obvious-reduction of the burden of repayments for borrowers and a greater number of prospective home purchasers able to fulfil their dream. However, as it stands now, the consumer price index figures over the last two years show an 11 per cent increase overall with rents escalating by 17.4 per cent. The average loan from a savings bank now takes up almost 25 per cent of the borrower's income compared with just 21.3 per cent in the March quarter 1983-when we left government. This represents a significant increase in monthly repayments and evidence supports the proposition that people now have less money to live on after accommodation costs have been paid out. In other words, the poverty level in our suburbs is increasing. While the Government has initiated policies to assist people to buy their first home, there is no such policy to help these same people keep their home when interest rates reach astronomical levels. The solution to this and other problems outlined always comes back to the same proposition: Stabilise the economy and interest rates will fall. Instigate a firm fiscal policy, thereby generating more confidence in our trading partners and in our domestic market. With this type of action, we as a nation will see sustained growth over the long term and a drop in inflation and in unemployment. A new wave of nationalism is needed in Australia, not in the superficial sense of the America's Cup or the Paul Hogan advertisements, but a pride in what this country has been able to do over the last 200 years and what we can do in the next 200 years. However, if we do not stop to think of where we are going as a nation and how we want to get there, we will lose our way and with it our collective spirit. A need to succeed is of the utmost importance in each and every one of us, and as a nation we need to reinvigorate this spirit and initiative. When this spirit is rekindled, this country will prosper and grow beyond our expectations and ambitions. But this requires all of us working as a whole unit, not as individuals each pursuing our private goals regardless of others. Our individual goals should become our national goals, our national goals our private goals. It is only with this community spirit that we will look forward to the twenty-first century with confidence and hope for a better life for all of us. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(9.30) —I support the passage of Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). The items included in the Bills demonstrate quite clearly the range of programs and activities in which the Government finds itself involved. They all represent key components of ongoing aspects of this Government's successful economic management of Australia. I will mention briefly some special items of note which, again, outline a range of activities. An amount of $21m is to be allocated to assist the Queensland and Western Australian governments for relief following their recent cyclone disasters. Another $52m has been allocated for the final tidying up of the Medicare arrangements with the States. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for persevering with the belief that Medicare arrangements could be successfully negotiated with the States. Everyone in this House would acknowledge that attempting to negotiate an Australia-wide deal with the States is a very difficult task which required a lot a persistence and negotiating skill. I commend the Minister for his efforts in this area. Of special interest to my electorate is the additional $70m being provided to assist Australian industry in the development of export incentives. We all recognise that the turnaround of Australian industry, and particularly Australian manufacturing industry, cannot be achieved overnight and cannot be achieved with quick band-aid measures. Long term structural problems have to be addressed. These programs, these incentives, to assist Australian industry find a niche, particularly for high quality specialist places in the market, is something to which this Government is strongly committed. A further $16m is provided for the further medical services for our veterans' community. I take this opportunity to reiterate once again, and very firmly, that the record of this Government on providing improved and expanded services for the veterans' community is unmatched in the history of government in Australia. I am particularly keen to point to the allocation of expenditure for the Government's national drug offensive, and I will make further reference to that later tonight. It is a program well worthy of further comment. I point particularly to a further $95m being allocated to defence purchasing. This expenditure is for the purchase of capital equipment and falls within the Government's strategy for using government purchasing to assist the rehabilitation of Australian manufacturing industry. I want to turn briefly to what I would describe as the intelligent use of government capital works expenditure within the economy. It is no coincidence that when this Government came to office Australia had experienced a period of record bankruptcy in the small business sector. We often hear people in the small business sector calling for government cutbacks. We often hear honourable members on the other side of the House calling for cutbacks in government expenditure, but they never explain where those cuts should be. It was very clear where those cuts were during their term of office. They were particularly in the area of government capital works, in areas such as roads, airports, hospitals, police stations and schools; the sorts of community capital works projects that are not undertaken by government contractors but by small business proprietors who are contractors to the Government. It is no coincidence that after the Hawke Government came to office the increased boost for government capital works produced a very buoyant period of business for small business contractors. It has played a substantial role in the successful boost to employment in Australia since the Hawke Government came to office. The same principle is being applied to the purchase of defence equipment. No longer do we have the policies of the Opposition-just to buy off the shelf from an ally to whom we feel beholden. This Government is insisting that if countries around the world want to sell to Australia they can come out here and transfer the technology and show our industry how to compete at world standards. The Government's offsets policies and the transfer of technology being insisted upon as part of this program are in my view a very beneficial use of government capital works expenditure, and provide a much needed boost to our economy. I have in my electorate, in the city of Castlemaine, a factory which employs 350 people. That factory-Thompsons- Byron, Jackson-was a key supplier to the Australian Government during World War II. Following World War II that factory has consistently missed out on government contracts and has run down its heavy engineering capacity. Now I am hopeful that in the lead-up to the new submarine contracts Thompsons in Castlemaine may be a beneficiary of the program. I am even more hopeful for the factory, given the announcement in the past few weeks by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, that we have completed a purchasing agreement with the States which will mean a genuine preference for Australian industry in the purchasing of government materials at both the State and Federal level. I commend the Minister for being able to put that package together. It has taken far too long to come about, and in fact the old arrangement, given the mess it was in, should never have been foisted upon this Government. I also note in the Bills an allocation of funds to make possible the Government's policy to provide a further 20,000 child care places. There is no dispute, certainly on this side of the House, that the Government has a leading role to play in assisting women to make their way back into the work force, providing them in particular with quality child care to assist both the short term and long term needs of the families of Australia. I know that our commitment to providing an additional 20,000 child care places is welcomed out in the community and I am glad to see this provision in this Bill. It is appropriate in this debate to recapitulate some of the achievements of this Government in its short period in office-short when one considers the long period of government since World War II of those on the other side of the House. They had the opportunity to establish in Australia a soundly based, soundly structured economy. What has happened to the economy? The short period of three years since March 1983 has produced a remarkable turnaround. Over half a million new jobs have been created in Australia. As of this week, the figure is 620,000 new jobs. Unemployment has been reduced substantially since this Government came to office. The deficit-the figure everybody seems to focus on around Budget time-has been reduced from a projected $9.6 billion when we took office to $4.9 billion in the current Budget Estimates. There have been record business profits of $6.5 billion. There has been a substantial cut in inflation from 12.3 to 8.2 per cent. There has been a substantial slow-down in the rate of increase of farm costs-as was announced by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) today in a ministerial statement on rural Australia-to a projected 3 per cent in the year to come. That is a fantastic achievement and the Government is not embarrassed in claiming it. Australia is enjoying a period of strong and sound economic growth under sound economic management. It has taken hard work and commitment on the part of members and supporters of the Government to bring this about. Other speakers in the debate have mentioned the prices and incomes accord. The Government can but acknowledge the role of the trade union movement in agreeing to the prices and incomes package-the most successful social package of its kind in the Western world since the Second World War. In that regard one can honestly say that Australian trade unionists have been prepared to forgo short term wage advantage to assist the Government in sound economic restructuring and to help those less fortunate to make their way back into the work force. That should not be forgotten. I wish to mention briefly the launching in the last two to three weeks of the Government's national drug offensive. I know that on the weekend many homes, particularly in metropolitan areas, received the new booklet for families. As a parent of teenage children, I know that the problem of communicating with teenagers and understanding how one talks about these issues is soundly addressed in this publication. I commend all those who have been responsible for its preparation, and call on everyone in the community, particularly those parents throughout the country who are worried about the way in which to approach this problem, to support the Government in this initiative and to read the publication closely. It is one of the best publications I have seen from government in many years. Because I represent an electorate with a significant rural component, and along with a substantial number of my colleagues I am a member of the Prime Minister's country task force, I want to make brief mention of the ministerial statement made today by the Minister for Primary Industry. I support the view that this is an historic statement, because it is the first time that any government has made such a broad and wide-ranging contribution to rural Australia. The Government recognises that rural Australia is an integral part of our history, culture and environment. As the Minister said, no government can afford to ignore the contribution made by the rural community, and certainly this Government does not ignore it. It is also acknowledged by the Government that short term band-aid measures are not the answer and the Government will not adopt such an approach. The Government recognises that the only policies that will work are those that contribute to the long term health of the agricultural sector. I draw attention to one aspect of the Minister's statement. The Minister highlighted the fact that the community employment program, which has made an incredible contribution to job creation, has been specifically directed to assist country Australia. I note that some 43,000 jobs have been created in rural and country Australia under that program. It has been highly successful in my electorate and I am proud to be associated with it. I conclude by quoting part of the Minister's statement: No government has ever presented such a comprehensive, wide-ranging review from the standpoint of the rural or any other sector, and no government has given more recognition of the needs of all residents of rural and provincial Australia. Those who are interested in policies for the long term development of all Australians will find much to support in this statement, much to support in our overall and economic and social strategies, and much to be thankful for in the record of this Government. I could not agree more, and I take this opportunity to support the passage of this legislation. Dr WATSON(Forde)(9.46) —I wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). These Bills do two things. They increase the appropriations for the Government and provide some offset savings, but the net effect of these measures is to increase expenditure financed from annual appropriations by some $678,300,000. These Bills increase government expenditure at a time when restraint is the order of the day. Perhaps there is no better person to tell us that restraint is the order of the day than the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating), who was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 4 March this year as issuing a blunt warning to his Cabinet colleagues the day before that the economy would run into serious problems unless the Government cut expenditure by about $1.4 billion in the 1986-87 financial year. In fact, these Bills represent a continuation of the high spending and high taxing program of this Government. This process began in 1983-84 when outlays were increased to some $56.5 billion and tax receipts to some $44.5 billion, with a Budget deficit of nearly $8 billion, the highest Budget deficit this country has ever run. In the 1985-86 financial year outlays have risen to some $69 billion, tax receipts to nearly $59 billion, and we are still running a Budget deficit of nearly $5 billion. This Government has an extremely unfavourable record when compared with the Liberal-National Party Government. This increase in government expenditure has implications, as a number of other speakers have suggested, for the total government debt in Australia, which is about $100 billion today, and the increasing high overseas debt, which is approaching $70 billion. These twin deficits, the Budget deficit and the current account deficit, ensure that our indebtedness will continue to grow for some years to come. The accumulation of debt is an example of a nation taking the easy option and deferring the problem until tomorrow, for those who follow, our children and grandchildren. We all know that debt can be productive when used to build facilities which provide a future stream of cash flows sufficient to service and repay the debt and to give an adequate return to the risk taker. But debt that is used for current consumption is a different animal. I shall return to that point in a moment. These Bills have implications for at least four inter-related policy areas-monetary policy, fiscal policy, taxation policy and investment policy. In the monetary and fiscal policy areas, the lack of fiscal restraint implies a continued high demand for government borrowings. In our current climate this implies higher interest rates than would otherwise be attained under a different fiscal and monetary policy. Every Australian who owns a home or is buying a car, refrigerator or television set or trying to run a small business or farm 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. The building society rates were 14.5 per cent per annum and falling and savings bank interest rates were 12.5 per cent per annum and falling. In fact, 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 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 un- favourably with our major trading partners. By March of this year-the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) knows this-bank interest rates were 19 per cent, building society interest rates were 15.5 per cent and savings bank interest rates had jumped to 15.5 per cent. So much for the Government's fiscal and monetary policy. Let us turn to taxation and investment policy. High outlays and high government expenditures imply simply higher taxation than there need be. Higher taxation also implies that there are less incentives for business and for individuals. I would like to address very briefly the issues of business investment and taxation. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd business indicators for September 1985 indicate the following investment ratios as a percentage of gross domestic product for Australia. In the late 1960s and early 1970s each year Australians invested something like 20 or 21 per cent of our gross domestic product in the future of Australia. In 1983-84 and 1984-85 this had fallen to about 17.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Not only has total investment fallen, but the important component of private investment has also fallen. Over a long time, right up until the 1980s, when the coalition was in office it averaged about 12.5 to 13 per cent. It has now fallen to about 8.5 or 9 per cent. At the same time consumption, which I mentioned earlier, has risen from 73 per cent to 78 per cent. Quite frankly, this Government is encouraging less business investment and greater consumption than was encouraged under the previous Liberal-led Government. These figures demonstrate that business investment is falling. I would like to turn now to the subject of the taxation policy which is destroying incentives for future investment. As honourable members would know, investment occurs only when after-tax returns on investment are sufficient to cover the risk; in other words, the person investing the money has to get an adequate return to service the debt, to repay the debt and to earn sufficient to make the risk worth while. This Government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), have been systematically raising taxation in Australia. I have already referred to the higher taxation of this Government compared with that of the previous Government, but let me remind honourable members of some of the things that this Government has done over the past three years to increase the impact of taxation on all Australians. The alternative home loan interest rebate scheme, which applied to interest in excess of 10 per cent per annum on the first $60,000 of a loan on a sole or principal residence, has been terminated by this Government. If that scheme had continued it would have ameliorated some of the problems that home owners are facing today. The rebate available to individual taxpayers on up to $1,000 of dividend income included in income tax was abolished by this Government. The rebate for basic health insurance contributions was terminated by this Government. The home insulation deduction was withdrawn by this Treasurer and this Prime Minister. The threshold for the application of the special rates of tax on the unearned income of unmarried minors was reduced from $1,040 per annum to $416 per annum by this Government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The tax exemption for pay and allowances of part time members of the Defence Force Reserve was partially abolished. We are told that fringe benefits are to be taxed at the employer level by this Government. Entertainment deductions have been disallowed by this Government. Living away from home allowances have been tightened. The provision for negative gearing arrangements is to be removed by the Treasurer. The wholesale tax regime was supposedly rationalised, but it in fact resulted in an increase in the taxes being collected by this Government and the Treasurer. We are told that there is to be an increase in company tax from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. Finally, despite the proposed tax rate reductions in personal marginal tax rates, fiscal drag has already robbed the average Australian family of any advantage of this reduction. The other changes that I have mentioned have been actually increasing the average tax paid by the Australian family. I have spoken of an incorrect monetary and fiscal policy. I have outlined the lack of incentive for business investment. I have spoken about the lack of incentive for families. I am afraid that this situation is well summarised-and perhaps the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is sitting at the table and who I know is a student of history, might recall this-by the comments of the distinguished historian Sir Arthur Bryant. I think that his thoughts on the decline of the Roman Empire are very applicable to Australia today. He said: Rome had grown out of greatness of individual character. It became a community in which individual character counted for nothing compared with an abstraction which proved, in the hour of testing, capable of nothing. By sacrificing the individual to the state the rulers of the Roman world undermined the real virtues which sustained it. They turned active and self-respecting citizens into inert and selfish ones. They discouraged the capitalist from thrift and foresight, the trader from enterprise, the craftsman from his hereditary skill, the husbandman from pride in the soil, the mother from maternity, and the soldier from courage and self-sacrifice. They made the moral shell which protected society so soft that it could protect it no longer. A creeping inertia paralysed everyone and everything. I ask honourable members, people who are listening and even people who might read the Hansard record of this debate, to reflect upon those words and to decide whether or not it reflects the current malaise in Australia that this Government has helped to create. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.58) —I enter this debate to raise particularly an issue which affects the State of Queensland and one which I feel will interest all members of the House of Representatives. I want to refer to a project that has been described as the greatest agricultural venture that this nation has ever seen. I refer to the jojoba plantations that have been established in central Queensland in the township of Raglan. Many years ago, when I was a State member of parliament, the then Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mike Ahern, raised serious questions about this project and I supported him to the hilt when he did so. Mike, who is a very dedicated member of parliament with a degree in agricultural science, questioned Mr Miller about the potential that was presented in all sorts of documents in relation to this jojoba plantation. He warned people and stressed that they ought to be very careful, because the projections that those behind this project were putting forward, as he said, simply had little validity. Mr Neil Turner, the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries who followed Mr Ahern-I regret that he has seen fit to retire-also expressed great concern about this project, and for good reason. Recently I had the unfortunate experience of meeting with one of the ex-employees of the jojoba plantation. He brought with him documents that were of grave concern to me. I believe it is important that I raise these matters in this chamber in the hope that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be able to act, that the Corporate Affairs Commission in Queensland will act and that together, using the justice systems that prevail, we may be able to bring those who are behind this rort and this fraud to justice. Raglan has something like 1,400 acres; it involves 3,000 investors, and those investors have paid between $10,000 and $12,000 per acre. The idea is a good one in many ways. It was simply a matter of setting up plantations. The idea was to encourage people to buy an acre, or units thereof, in this plantation. Some people might buy 10 units or 10 acres and for that they could pay $100,000, the concept being, as the prospectus I have shows, that after about five years, when the jojoba plants would bear, they would make considerable profits and these plants would go on bearing for many years. I bring to the attention of honourable members a prospectus that I have. At the time the Chairman of Jojoba Management Limited was Sir Rupert James Hamer, KCMG, LLD, ED. His message as the Chairman stressed the potential of this important new industry for Australia. Pages 19, 20 and 21 of the prospectus set out the sorts of concepts that are involved in developing, for instance, a 2,800 unit or 700 acre plantation and the benefits to be derived from that project. One looks also at the types of people who were behind Jojoba Management Limited and one finds some very important people. We find Sir Wallace Rae who was previously a Minister in the Queensland State Parliament, a man who also went to London as Queensland's Agent-General, a man very well known and highly respected. So Jojoba Management Limited put around it some very competent people. It also selected the best agronomists that it could find. Again, this gave it some status and credibility. It set out some years ago-approximately five years ago-to sell these plantations, but it would seem that, right from the outset, it was determined to rip off the investors and it has done that in a very smart way. Plantation 1, which is portions 19, 23, 33 and 104 of the parish of Langmore, a plantation that involves 412.25 acres, was sold to the investors but only 230.8 acres were developed and planted. There was a shortfall of 180 acres. But this company still sold these acres, telling the people that the cost of maintaining an acre for five years-that is to plant and develop-was about $6,000. It was selling these, on average over the five-year period, for between $10,000 and $12,000. So honourable members can see the profits involved. In fact it is believed that the total investment for the 1,400 acres amounted to around $14m. Yet today the phone bills are not being paid and those who are still left working for this company are struggling to get their wages. The various plantations, be they plantations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, are no longer being maintained. The irrigation schemes that were promised did not come about. Instead, we have a fiasco, with major shortfalls-shortfalls, I might point out, that have been admitted by the management. I refer to a document which is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Jojoba board of management dated Wednesday, 5 February 1986. Present at that meeting were F. H. Mader, Managing Director; M. Mader, a Director; J. Willcox, plantation manager, and K. Gattenhof, S. Bell and L. Henderson who represented administration. Business item No. 3, which is headed `Acreage shortfall sold in plantations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5', states: The Managing Director, Fred Mader, agreed to make up the shortfall of approximately 280 acres in Plantations 1 to 5 by purchasing equivalent acreage, planting and maintaining same at the `Aintree' Plantation as soon as he has funds available from the sale of his land. The significance of this is that that shortfall is worth something like $2m. Moreover, it has been pointed out to me that the honourable gentleman does not hold title to the land that he intended to sell. If we look at the actual figures we find that it is not just a matter of a shortfall of 280 acres, as has been suggested in the minutes. In fact it is more like a shortfall of somewhere around 800 acres. When we multiply that figure by about $10,000 per acre, we start to appreciate that we are talking about the greatest rip-off in Australian agricultural history-a rip-off of about $8m. I am told that Mr Mader drives the most exotic cars that one can think of. For instance, he has a Rolls Royce, he has Volvos and he has a fleet of 8 or 9 cars. I am told that he has a magnificent home on the Gold Coast-but the wages are not being paid, the phone bills are not being paid and the investors will not be paid. We find that, instead of people counting on a return after four or five years-honourable members can check that through in the information that has been provided, which I will be willing to table-most of the promises have never been met. Let us look, for instance, at plantation 1. We find that 180 acres have not even been planted. If we go back and look at other plantations, we find that the same is true everywhere. Plantation 2 was sold around 1981. It was not even planted until 1985, and the plants are only 12 months old. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate, coming from central Queensland, that the jojoba plant needs something like four to five years to bear. The investors were supposed to get a return next year and that certainly will not take place. Plantation No. 2 was sold as 400 acres and as an irrigation plantation. Yet an investigation that has been carried out shows that only 9 acres have trickle irrigation. Surely this must be misrepresentation at the highest level. It must be fraud. Plantation No. 3, which consists of 100.25 acres, again was sold in 1980-81. It was pointed out that it was very important to have irrigation, that irrigation was necessary to establish that plantation. To date, five years later, there is no irrigation system. What we have is 80 acres that were seeded just before Christmas. It has been pointed out in information provided to me that Mr Mader was concerned that the Corporate Affairs Commission in Queensland may be on to him so he ought to start doing something with the land and, therefore, he seeded 80 acres, knowing full well that it would not work. At this point, there is still a nil growth. The acreage involved was sold for between $8,000 and $10,000 an acre. We are talking again of $1m-another rip-off. Plantation No. 4 consists of 238 acres, of which 225 acres were developed but only 80 acres were planted. Quite obviously one does not get any jojoba plants bearing unless one plants them. Two years ago 80 acres were planted and there has been no return to date. On plantation No. 5, 58 acres were sold and nothing was planted. On plantation No. 6, lots 1 and 2 of portion 127 were sold without a prospectus. Surely that is not condoned by any system of justice or corporate structure in any State. It was sold without a prospectus by a company known as East West Securities. The sales manager is a man called Peter Webb. No wonder he was willing to sell it because he was receiving a retainer of $3,000 per week plus a commission. This acreage was sold at $15,000 an acre and the company sold 153 acres, which amounts to around $2m. Mr Deputy Speaker, you see that we have here a rort of mighty proportions and I believe that it deserves a thorough investigation at the highest possible level. The State Ministers in Queensland whom I have mentioned-the present Minister for Primary Industries and a former Minister for Primary Industries-warned people about it. I ask at this point why the Queensland Government and the Minister for Justice have not acted on this matter, because there have been plenty of warnings. It would seem that the Corporate Affairs Commission was aware that something was going on, but again nothing was done. I see the situation being now that 3,000 Australian investors are going to lose anything between $14m and $15m. What is worse is that a scheme that could have been so important to the future economic growth of central Queensland will have its reputation totally ruined. One has only to read the prospectus and material that has been supplied by the Department of Primary Industries to realise that jojoba plantations have a great potential to provide a secondary income for many on the land. But there can be no income when the crops are not planted, when the irrigation schemes are not implemented, when there is no maintenance, or when those who are to carry out the work are not paid and resign. That is the case. If one looks through the correspondence one can see that many points are made. Unfortunately, I do not have time to raise all these matters and to bring them to the attention of honourable members. The minutes, the letter from Mr Hamer and the correspondence that has been delivered to me that is of a personal nature, back in August 1985, in October 1985, in the early part of January 1986, all warned of the seriousness of the situation, but nothing was done. Instead, those involved continued to represent this as a going project. Just before Christmas they even made out that they had received about a tonne of the jojoba bean, while in actual fact it was about 100 kilograms. They put out that information because they wanted people to believe that the crops were bearing and to ensure that there were no troubles. I believe that we need to have a thorough investigation, and I call for that. I will make all the information that I have here available to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). As I have said, I am prepared to meet with Mr Harper, the Attorney-General in Queensland, in the hope that something can be done. I believe that right now the money that Mader and his cohorts have ought to be frozen, because I suspect that he will disappear very, very quickly now that this whole rort has been exposed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —During his remarks the honourable member for Capricornia made reference to tabling certain documents. Mr WRIGHT —I seek leave to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Leave granted. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.13) —I rise briefly in the adjournment debate because I am reminded that it was one week ago tonight that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) arranged a bipartisan trip to Mount Stromlo to observe what will be for all of us a once in a lifetime experience, namely, an opportunity to see at first hand Halley's comet. So it was that the majority of members of this House journeyed by bus to Mount Stromlo and were able to observe either by binoculars or through the quite remarkable viewing facilities provided at Mount Stromlo something of the magic and the wonder of Halley's comet. Those people who were not able to view the comet as adequately as they had hoped, either through binoculars or the telescope, were able through the miracles of modern science to see the comet on the television monitors. I rise to address the House in this manner because this is a once in a lifetime occurrence, as the comet returns only every 76 years. What is generally not appreciated is that, in fact, the oldest astronomical society in Australia is the Astronomical Society of South Australia, which was formed in 1892 and which currently has a membership of 380 people. Mr Robert Brown —All in Wakefield. Mr ANDREW —I shall take up the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is appropriate that I rise here tonight and make this point, because the Astronomical Society of South Australia has constructed in the electorate of Wakefield, at a small place called Stockport, 80 kilometres north of Adelaide, the new viewing facility known as the Stockport observatory. The Astronomical Society of South Australia faced the same dilemma as Canberrans in that it found that the viewing platform the Society once had in the grounds of the Marion High School became increasingly ineffective as a viewing area because of the increasing light pollution in the city of Adelaide. So the Astronomical Society thought it would be appropriate in South Australia's jubilee 150 year to construct a new viewing platform and telescope at the town of Stockport. Stockport was chosen not only because it was in the electorate of Wakefield-although I have no doubt that that was something of a determining factor-but also because it is both convenient to Adelaide and far enough to the north of the city to be protected from light pollution. I pay a tribute to the Astronomical Society not only for the site it chose for the new observatory but also for the foresight it showed in deciding to coincide the opportunity to view Halley's comet with the Jubilee 150 celebrations that have been so much a part of South Australia. At a cost of $50,000 the Astronomical Society of South Australia has constructed at Stockport an entirely new observatory, and I pay a tribute to South Australia's Jubilee 150 Board, which made available a $28,000 grant. I am sure the House would agree that it is very appropriate that the Jubilee 150 year coincided with the arrival of Halley's comet. The generosity of the Jubilee 150 Board in making this $28,000 grant available has made it possible for the Astronomical Society to construct this observatory at Stockport. However, we should not underrate what members of the Astronomical Society of South Australia have done themselves, in finding from Society funds $17,000, and managing to raise from Astronomical Society members' loans an additional sum of $5,000 so that the new observatory could be completed. It was opened one month ago by the Deputy Premier of South Australia, Dr Don Hopgood. I make the point, too, that a 20-inch Jubilee telescope has been installed at this new Stockport observatory. Further, over the current two-week period, which was expected to be the best time to see Halley's comet, 1,600 people have booked to visit the Stockport observatory to view Halley's comet. I think that the observatory is a tribute to the foresight of the people of the Astronomical Society of South Australia and the Jubilee 150 Board. I pay a tribute to them tonight and point out how pleased I was both to attend the opening of the observatory and to congratulate them for what they had done for the people of South Australia and the astronomical societies of this nation. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.18) —I wish to speak tonight on an issue to which I feel all parliamentarians should pay heed, and that is the issue of Aboriginal health in this country. I would also like to pay a tribute to the Aboriginal health services, which are mainly managed and controlled by Aboriginals themselves, for the part that they are playing to overcome the problems of ill health amongst Aboriginals in the community. I wish to refer to an article in the Readers' Digest of April 1986 written by a very well known Aboriginal, Neville Bonner, who of course was a Liberal senator in the other place until a few years ago. Neville Bonner points out that there is a need for more Aboriginal health services in this country today. Innumerable surveys have shown that the state of Aboriginal health is a national disgrace. The following facts should be considered. Aboriginal babies are almost three times as likely as as white babies to die at birth. One study shows that in Western Australia Aboriginal children are four times as likely as white children to need hospitalisation, and for twice as long. In New South Wales life expectancy among Aboriginals in country areas is only 48 to 49 years for men and 55 to 57 years for women, compared with the non-Aboriginal expectancy of 71 years for men and 78 years for women. The death rate among Aboriginals aged 35 to 39 years is 14 time higher than average. One in five males who reach the age of 20 years will be dead before his fortieth birthday. In remote desert communities-I have visited a number of those in recent years-three children out of every four will contract the potentially blinding disease, trachoma. This slow scarring disease had been virtually eliminated as a cause of blindness in white people. Yet 1,450 of Australia's 160,000 Aboriginals are blind because of trachoma and other causes. Experts say that proper medical attention could be prevented some 80 per cent of the cases. Diabetes strikes 3.4 per cent of the total population but up to 19 per cent of Aboriginals. Gastroenteritis, inflammation of the stomach and intestines, is caused by food poisoning, parasites, allergies, viruses or infections, and usually produces diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting. Among Western Australian infants, Aboriginals are 11 times more likely than whites to need hospitalisation for gastroenteritis. Sometimes the disease is a killer. Leprosy, which many non-Aboriginals feel is a disease of the past, continues to ravage. Of some 230 cases that were reported and notified in Australia between 1980 and 1984, more than one-third were Aboriginals. Hearing loss due to middle ear infection is 200 times greater in Aboriginals than among white people. Dental hygiene is generally poor. As Mr Neville Bonner states, justifiable panic and outcry would sweep across Australia if the same level of sickness affecting his people were being suffered by whites. Yet some non-Aboriginals challenge the need for a separate black-controlled medical service. Is not the plight of the Aboriginals, those people ask, caused largely by their reckless refusal to utilise mainstream facilities? Should Australia, they say, foster this form of medical apartheid? Such questions reveal an ignorance of the problem and a failure to understand the anxieties of Aboriginal people about the circumstances under which they live. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(10.23) —The family structure as we know it is at risk. One of the causes is a lack of family counselling to try to keep families together. Much more money is currently being spent on Family Court of Australia matters which are the last step in family breakdown. I submit that more funds need to be made available for family counselling. In my electorate of Groom, marriage counsellors have joined together in a call for more government help to save marriages. They cite the price of family breakdown costing the nation $1,500m in 1985. This costing will increase to about $3 billion this year. The National Party of Australia and I believe that the family is paramount if our society is to prosper and to go forward. The amount of government resources spent on supporting parent and deserted wives benefits is staggering. It has been estimated by the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council that, if marriage counselling organisations were effective in diverting a mere 3 per cent of the couples who use their services away from supporting parent benefits, the total expense of the Government's investment in marriage counselling would be saved. This is a mere $4m. A significant percentage of marriage conflict resulting in divorce can be resolved through skilled intervention counselling and marriage education programs. In a society where a degree is practically needed to stand any real chance of getting a job, it is slightly unreal to expect young people to enter a marriage without any formal education about the impact it will have on their future and that of their children. However, because of the limited resources available, many couples are unable to be helped. Queensland is a huge State, with many far-flung cities and towns. Yet throughout the State there are only 13 marriage guidance agencies. These 13 offices are stretched to the limit. Many requests for help from both serviced and unserviced areas have had to be turned down because of the lack of or limited resources available. There is an acute shortage of counsellors in both Townsville and Brisbane, which has resulted in a corresponding fall in interviews conducted, while in areas such as Mount Isa, Mackay, Ipswich, Cairns, Gladstone and Toowoomba, where offices are fully staffed, there has been a dramatic growth in use of the service. Reports indicate that over three-quarters of those who attend counselling say that the counselling was helpful. We need more if the country is to shed some of its social security costs for more productive revenue raising activities. Needless to say, the cost of marriage breakdown is felt most acutely by the children, the young innocents who lives are altered dramatically by the departure of a mother or father. Their suffering cannot be measured in dollars and cents. However, the impact is most profound, not only on the emotional level but also economically. It has been estimated that about 20 per cent of Australian children are living below the poverty line, and unfortunately the percentage is rising. The pain and trauma caused by marital and family breakdown can have life-long consequences for the children involved. Who amongst us can tolerate any child spending its life in poverty and insecurity unnecessarily? Help is readily available to separating couples in the form of pensions, legal aid, Family Court divorce counselling, subsidised child care, and so on. But little interest has been shown in supporting marriage counselling. The current trends indicate that between 30 and 40 per cent of Australian marriages will end in divorce. About 50,000 children will be affected. These are the innocent victims. There is a growing opinion that separation is far from desirable when children are involved. Counsellors are constantly seeing the grief and suffering of separation, the trauma associated with access and custody and later the entanglements of step-families. Yet in the present atmosphere the unhappy wife or husband will more than likely seek legal advice rather than make contact with a marriage counsellor. Experience has proven that much of the marriage conflict can be resolved through skilled intervention counselling and that many divorces are unnecessary and preventable. It is not unreasonable to assert that if more community resources were made available in this area beneficial effects on the quality of life in Australia would result. It is the pay as you earn employees who are contributing the most to welfare funding. Their middle class values and family unit lifestyles cost them approximately $500 a year for each welfare recipient. About 83,000 of the recipients are deserted wives, but 43,000 are unmarried mothers drawing a supporting parent pension. There are also 9,000 men. In a recently leaked memo to Cabinet, Treasurer Paul Keating spoke of the nation's finances being in a tailspin primarily caused by welfare payments. Something needs to be done. The first logical step is to educate young people about the seriousness of marriage before they make the commitment and then afterwards to help couples who are having difficulties to sort through their problems and resolve them rather than walk away from them. I call upon the Government to take a closer look at its priorities. A conscious effort must be made to rearrange funding so that more resources are made available for counselling couples in conflict. A tripling of funding to marriage guidance councils will have a dual purpose of keeping families together and decreasing our social security payouts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.28) —Recently I was privileged to travel with the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. The primary aim of the Committee's visit was to investigate adverse Press reports relating to accidental spillage at the Ranger mine. When one arrives there, the first thing that one notices when one goes in the gate of the Ranger uranium mine is the large sign which shows the safety record of the mine for the previous month. We were there in February and I think there were 29 accidents in February; that is one for every day. The safety record of this mine is abysmal. Recently 250 production workers at Ranger went on strike because a discharge of sulphur dioxide spread throughout the plant, or part of the plant, which made a number of workers ill. Recently there was also a fire in a rod mill which crushes uranium ore. There have been reports of leakages and various accidents occuring at this mine. I believe that some of the causes of the accidents are the harsh conditions under which the workers have to work but one of the main causes is management of the mine. The management does not act as it should in a heavy industry. When I arrived there one of the first things I noticed was a huge pile of sulphur. It is a bright yellow and many people think that it is yellowcake. It is not; it is sulphur. It is in a large concrete basin and is spread throughout the plant just through bad work practices. Tractors go into it and one can see it spread over the surrounding ground by the wheels of the tractors-Paper bags of chemicals had been left out in the open. The paper had been washed off by the rain and the chemicals were leaking on to the ground. Large plastic containers of a highly corrosive acid called ferric chloride, which was used in a water treatment plant which is not being used and had not been used for some time were in the open. After the heavy rain piles of mud had built up against the plastic drums of ferric chloride. Forty-four gallon drums had been rusted through. Radioactive tailings were over the top of the drain which ran on to the surrounding landscape. There is a new method of processing the tailings there. An effort is being made to get away from covering them with three or four feet of water. The tailings were in an open dam-like situation. This was very good because the tailings did not take up such a large area. If one looked at the slurry one could see that birds and animals had walked across it. It is highly radioactive. The animals then proceeded into the bush. I have photographs of this if anyone is concerned and wants to look at them. Plastic pipes, which transferred the radioactive tailings to this dam which was being tested as a new method of containing the tailings, were held in place by fencing wire and fence posts. This is not proper engineering practice. It is a disgrace to anyone who calls himself an engineer. The main tailings pipe which transfers the tailings to the dam had burst some weeks before we got there. Part of the pipe that had burst and was worn out had been put back into the pipeline. One does not do these sorts of things if one is transporting highly radioactive material to another site. The unions there were concerned. They claimed that some workers had died through something to do with the plant. The unions want a proper computer register of the people who work there. They want to be able to trace them all through their life-not just for the next six or 12 months-so that in years to come they will know who worked there and who worked in what particular area so that if a worker does get any sort of cancer or disease he can be traced quite easily. This company must improve its management. As I have said before, it is not good for an industry like this to be spoilt by bad engineering practices. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.34) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the privileged position of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The Corporation is effectively an arm of government. It reports to the Federal Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and it is in the market-place competing with private sector companies. I should make it clear from the outset that the private sector relishes competition. Competition is the life- blood of the private enterprise system. However, that competition should be seen to be fair-scrupulously fair! Unfair competition from a government agency, an agency spawned by government itself, is unacceptable. Governments make the rules and, quite properly, act as umpires too. However, it is obviously not appropriate for the Government to make the rules, act as an umpire and also enter the field as a player. When the Government blows the whistle, one can be sure it is not to give the private enterprise competition a free kick! That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is exactly what happens in the case of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. In the last annual report, that for the year ended 30 June 1985, it was readily acknowledged that it `operates as a business undertaking in competition with other insurers'. Elsewhere in the report it is stated that the Corporation is self-financing, services capital and is liable for taxes levied by the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. I suggest that these statements are intended to deceive, to give the Corporation a facade or respectability, to imply that the Corporation competes fairly with its private enterprise competitors when the truth is otherwise. Therefore let me dispel any thoughts this House may have about fair competition as practised by the Corporation. Firstly, in an industry where security is paramount, the Corporation has had bestowed upon it a government guarantee. Secondly, the Corporation has all the benefits associated with government ownership conferred upon it. The Corporation has an arrangement whereby the Commonwealth Government act as reinsurer for certain insurance covers required by the Corporation, albeit for a fee. Honourable members should also not be surprised to learn that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is not required to comply with the requirements of the Insurance Act 1973-its competitors are. That gives the Corporation a number of advantages which I shall not particularise here. Suffice it to say that if the Corporation were required to comply with the Insurance Act the Commonwealth Government would have to inject $20m to $25m of extra capital. It should be noted that the Review of the Australian Financial System recommended in its final report that the Corporation should pay an appropriate fee to offset the competitive advantage associated with its government ownership and guarantee. That recommendation has not been followed. There are other advantages inherent in the arrangements covering the operations of the Corporation-benefits, privileges and subsidies. The full range and depth of those various hidden subsidies will be determined only when the operations of the Corporation are subjected to objective scrutiny by a commercial auditing and costing firm from the private sector-an organisation which is sensitive about the realities of business life, which can identify and quantify the full cost to taxpayers of the Corporation's generous superannuation scheme, which can establish the commercial worth of the services the Corporation draws on from a number of government agencies ranging from the Australian Government Actuary to the Auditor-General's Office. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was established in 1965 to meet what was then seen as a need to create a mortgage insurance market in Australia. A substantial market in mortgage insurance has since been developed. The Corporation has served its purpose as an arm of the government and it should now be sold, as proposed by the Fraser Government. The sale of the Corporation to the private sector would ensure that all companies competed on equal terms and that taxpayers were not compelled to provide hidden subsidies to a government agency. All Australians would benefit from the proceeds of the sale; Australians would have a stake in the private sector purchaser for all of us are shareholders in private enterprise. We provide no capital yet collectively share through taxation receipts a dividend equivalent to 46c in the dollar. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.39) —In late February and early March the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and I were afforded the opportunity to visit Kampuchea as guests of World Vision. It was indeed a unique opportunity and I would like to thank Mr Roger Walker and his organisation for the invitation. It gave us the opportunity to look first hand at some of the non-government organisations in that country and the work that they were doing. Kampuchea flashed across our television screens during the 1970s as the horrors of the Vietnam War spilled across the borders, when bombings occurred and the infamous Pol Pot and his regime cut a swath through that country. Of course all of us were aware of the invaluable role of emergency assistance to overcome the famine and trauma of Pol Pot in 1979 and 1980. It was appropriate that we should look at the non-government organisations and whether or not they were fulfilling the needs and priorities of Kampuchea. It is a pleasure to report that the clear impression we received was that Australia's contribution was not only effective but also very much valued by that country. The precarious state of Kampuchea is a result of a tense political situation which is destabilised by the existence of Vietnamese occupying forces, a Western blockade and active Khmer Rouge guerrilla insurgency. Kampuchean society is characterised by poverty, disease, malnutrition and reliance on tenuous subsistence agricultural production. Rightly, I believe, the first priority of the country is food production. This rich country, which was a net exporter of agricultural products in the past, is suffering because of population losses, massive social dislocations caused by war and Pol Pot, and the present insecure situation. All of these factors are diminishing and frustrating efforts in the area. Simple techniques of irrigation and hydrology seem to be beyond the Kampucheans in many areas and adequate fertilisers and pesticides are lacking. It was heartening to see the work of the Australian Freedom from Hunger group in the Kandal province where many of its irrigation projects are providing the capability for arid land to be made fertile and for two crops to be grown where only one was previously possible. Another of the priorities of Kampuchea is the provision of adequate health care. On visiting hospitals, medical schools and district health centres, the diabolical legacy of Pol Pot became only too clear. Hundreds of doctors, pharmacists, dentists, students and medical facilities were destroyed during the time of Pol Pot. The training and equipment that is now available to the Kampucheans is rudimentary, to say the least, yet it is a credit to their ingenuity that Kampuchea is able to produce competent medical graduates and people in paramedical fields. Again, the non-government organisations are doing very important work. The best patronised and clearly the finest facilities for paediatric hospitals in Pnom Penh are those provided by World Vision, whose hospital does an overwhelmingly good job in providing assistance to large numbers of children and in educating their parents so as to stop the needless suffering that can be avoided by the provision of the most basic facilities. The work of the Australians in World Vision is outstanding. The legacy of Pol Pot in the area of education remains. While the Government is endeavouring to make progress in that area, it was disappointing to see that the Western blockade and the isolation the country is suffering have meant that the English language is not being taught sufficiently. Again, we found that a project initiated by the Australian Quakers was beginning to have an effect in this area and that English language teaching was taking increasing hold. It would be absurd to suggest that in one week one can become an expert, but we were afforded the opportunity of speaking with large numbers of workers from international agencies from all over the world. We had the opportunity to meet a number of government officials. We saw as much as we possibly could of the country under the security arrangements that were made. It was impossible for us to investigate human rights issues as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was only too keen to do. The clear impression with which we came away from the country was that the country is struggling to get back on its feet against difficulties that are unimaginable for us in Australia. Although we may not be ideologically aligned with the Kampuchean Government, it seemed to have its priorities right in the areas of food production, education and health. The future for a political solution in the country seems bleak as long as the West, the Soviets and the Chinese continue to play power politics and the Khmer people remain pawns in the game. The experience for me was very sobering in that it put the problems we have in Australia in perspective. We should all count our blessings in this country for we are, indeed, very fortunate. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.44) —I draw the attention of the House to yet another of the fallacies perpetrated by the Hawke Government in its `attempts' to help the rural sector out of the dire straits it finds itself in today-the great farce of the petrol price reduction. Speaking of great farces, I do not think many of us in the chamber have witnessed any farce greater than that which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made us witness this afternoon in his expulsion of what can be described only as hot air. He will have to go down in the history of the Federal Parliament as being the only deaf and blind Primary Industry Minister we have ever had, because he would have to be deaf and blind to have brought out the sort of rural aid package he brought out this afternoon. He travelled around Australia and listened to farmers right across the country, to the wives of farmers-to the people who live in rural communities. He has completely and utterly ignored the message those people have been crying out with. The message those people have been crying out with is that rural Australia wants some assistance in the form of a reduction in interest rates. People have been calling upon the Government to get out of the interest rate market, to stop inflating interest rates. They have been calling upon the Government to allow the full benefits of the world wide reduction in the price of fuel to flow not just to farmers but to every Australian so that our transport costs can come down, therefore reducing production and input costs for farmers and other people right across the country. These things were completely ignored. We were told that capital gains taxes would be good for us. We were told that fringe benefit taxes would be good for us. We were told that we would still have to undergo the ALP-ACTU 3 per cent superannuation deal, even though it might be delayed for a couple of years. These things are not what rural Australians want. The package that was brought out this afternoon is a farce and will be seen as such in the community. It will live for ever in the mind of the Minister for Primary Industry as one of his great failings in that role. Tonight I want to speak about a fellow in my electorate called Mr John Mood, who owns a farm in the town of Koorawatha, in the western portion of the electorate of Gilmore, called `Burlington Heights'. Mr Mood contacted me last week to ask what had happened to the 10.6c per litre price reduction he had been led by the Hawke Government to expect after the middle of March for the diesel he uses for off-road purposes. Mr Mood has sent to me his fuel accounts for March and April. On 5 March the price he paid per litre for his diesel was 53.3c. On 2 April he paid 49c per litre for his diesel, a reduction of only 4.3c per litre-some 6c short of the 10.6c per litre he thought, and was informed, he was going to get from the Prime Minister. Where has the 6c per litre gone? It has been gradually whittled away by many things-by the difference between the prices offered to the company and the price the company then offered to the local dealer, by the additional freight charges that were placed on diesel immediately after the reduction was announced and by factors such as the cost of filling drums, which is $2 per 200-litre drum. These are the sorts of `additional costs' not taken into account by the Government, which have quickly added up to reduce the reduction of 10.6c per litre to the 4.3c per litre actually received in the hand by Australian farmers-yet another deception by the Government. These are the facts. This is why the fuel price adjustments, so loudly announced by the Hawke Government, have failed to be fully realised at the farm gate. Despite the scandalous difference between the diesel price reduction offered and that which has actually eventuated, the reduction in the price of super has been much more in line with what was expected. No doubt, city dwellers, who have received the price reduction on their petrol that the Prime Minister told them to expect, share the assumption of the Hawke Government that farmers received a full 10.6c per litre reduction on diesel. We have just seen that such an assumption is grossly inaccurate. How can the Hawke Government pretend to make all important policy decisions resulting in the rural package that is supposed to rescue farmers from their current state of emergency if it is so badly informed and if it is working on assumptions that are clearly incorrect? I suggest that, if the Government were more aware of the huge differences between price reductions offered and those received at the farm gate many of the problems facing rural Australia at the moment could be overcome. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.49) —It does not often occasion a back bench member of a government to come into this chamber and make a major announcement on a major decision of the Federal and State Labor governments relating to massive expenditure in one's electorate. However, I do so on this occasion, sad perhaps that I read about it in today's Melbourne Herald. Nevertheless, seeing that it has not yet been formally announced to the chamber and there is no doubt that I can get a bit of mileage out of this one, I shall now formally announce it to the chamber. I shall now formally announce it to this House. The Western Institute, announced by my colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and my State colleague Mr Cathie, Education Minister in the Cain Labor Government, is by any definition a major initiative for the western region of Melbourne. I will not indicate that I put so much spadework into it that it ought to be named the Griffiths Institute but, together with my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), I had a number of detailed discussions with the Minister for Education, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and our State parliamentary colleagues. Over a very long time one can establish empirically that there really was not the sort of effort put into the western region of Melbourne that was justified by objective criteria. For a very long period it had a number of seats, in both Federal and State parliamentary arenas, which were essentially locked up by the Australian Labor Party. That area always had overwhelming support for the Labor Party. The end result, during successive periods of conservative government at both State and Federal levels, was that the real needs of the people of that area were not addressed-for the most basic and base political reasons. The Western Institute, as I indicated, is a major initiative which will provide a range of post-secondary education to the hitherto largely unserviced residents of that region. It will cover the whole spectrum; for example, from trade training to nursing, diplomas and degrees. Campuses will open in Melton, Werribee, and Sydenham, with one close to my electorate in St Albans. As I indicated, my colleague the honourable member for Calwell has been heavily involved in this project over time. His-and I hope my-and my other State and Federal parliamentary colleagues' efforts have been rewarded. The Institute will take 3,000 full time students by 1990. My colleague in the Opposition, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), is trying to interject, but what did his ragbag outfit do for the western region of Melbourne over many decades? They did absolutely nothing and ought to be ashamed of that. By 1993, the Institute-the Western Institute, not the Griffiths Institute-will have 5,000 students. The State Government has indicated-and I hope that on a bipartisan basis people will share the view-that we need many more nurses. We are facing a shortage in a number of States, more particularly in Victoria. The State Government has already made the decision to allocate significant capital funding to ensure that we have a new establishment in which nurses will receive adequate training and hence contribute to an effective health system not only in Victoria, but in some circumstances-if they travel after their training-also interstate. I should thank the Deputy Premier of Vic- toria, Robert Fordham, who was one of the catalysts for this major initiative. I also thank the many community organisations and individuals in the western region of Melbourne who contributed not only conceptually but also to the very great deal of work that has gone into this project. This is a major initiative. We are talking of tens of millions of dollars to be injected into the western region of Melbourne. I believe that it is long overdue and will add to the landscape of initiatives which the Labor Government has brought about in the western region to very much benefit those people who have missed out for so long. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(10.54) —Most people in this Parliament would be aware, because of widespread media comments, of the real crisis that we have in the Mallee area of Victoria, particularly in the central Mallee part of my electorate. We have a very real financial and social crisis due to the downturn in wheat prices, a high proportion of below average seasons recently, high interest rates and, of course, the massive impact of domestic costs. This is a crisis of the whole community as all the towns in the Mallee, particularly in the broad acre and dry land farming areas, are almost entirely dependent on the grains industry-the wheat and barley industry-for their financial viability. Distance is a massive problem as the 2,000 farms and seven or eight towns about which I am speaking are spread over an area of about 200 kilometres by about 240 kilometres. Much has been done by the local communities. A Mallee crisis committee has been formed which represents all community groups and relevant government departments. Its aim is to co-ordinate the work of self-help groups in local communities, discuss needs and policies for the Mallee with government and seek resources to help alleviate financial and social stress in community members and their families. One of the great problems with declining profits on our farms is that farmers' sons and daughters cannot be retained on the farm. Many retrenchments are occurring in the towns as the farmers' spending power is reduced. It is therefore obvious that many young people are leaving the area and many may not return if they have to stay away too long. Many of the future generations of farmers come from these young people. It is sad to lose the very many highly-skilled and professionally trained people from the small businesses that service the rural community. The financial situation has also forced many farmers, their wives and townspeople to take unemployment benefits after fruitlessly looking for work. It is unfortunate that at present over 500 farmers' wives are receiving unemployment benefits in the central Mallee area. Many hundreds are also on income family support. Also, many farmers who work off the farm during quieter period find that work is now not available. I mention that briefly because there is an urgent need for job creation in the Mallee region. A few weeks ago I telexed the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to ask him to consider changing the criteria for the community employment program. As well as my telex, letters have been written by Mr Ian Ada, Secretary of the Mallee Crisis Committee. Also, contact has been made by the Reverend Neil Vincent, Chairman of the Sea Lake Community Welfare Group in relation to this problem. Unfortunately, the community employment program guidelines have prevented a number of local government initiatives commencing. Until late last year younger people were not looking for work. Those who were usually found casual work. No-one registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service unless intending to go on long term unemployment benefits, as the local grapevine in rural areas ensured that jobs were found when they were available. Now the issue is so urgent that the region cannot afford to wait for three to nine months registration before employing these people. There is a criterion of employment on CEP projects for a maximum of six months, which gives people some training, allowing them to be more competitive when seeking work. Unfortunately, this criterion is inappropriate in the Mallee at present. Basically, employment opportunities will not rise unless the fortunes of the cereal industry change, there are at least a couple of above average seasons in succession, or the Government responds to the cost program. An amendment on guidelines for CEP funding for projects in the Mallee, recognising that people in this community are disadvantaged, is warranted to alleviate family stress with the income provided as well as the gaining of new skills. It is warranted to retain people within our community and to maintain the community structures. It is warranted to maintain a cash flow within our community for the survival of businesses within that community. I urgently request the Minister to take the submission into account and see that the criteria for the community employment program is adjusted to meet the needs of the crisis in our rural areas. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following notices were given. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to the futures industry in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to fees payable for the purposes of the Futures Industry Act 1986. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities in consequence of the enactment of the Futures Industry Act 1986. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act relating to the marketing of wheat, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 15 April 1986: National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 47. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 48, 49, 50. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2684) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the Cabinet agreed to encourage the establishment of departmental offices in Queanbeyan, NSW; if so, has the decision been supported by Public Service personnel. (2) Is it a fact that the cost differential for rental accommodation between Canberra and Queanbeyan is between $40 and $100 per square metre. (3) Is the Government negotiating for additional rental space in the Canberra region at present; if so, has it been offered any suitable premises in Queanbeyan. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As the honourable member would know, it is not the Government's practice to comment on what has, or has not, been the subject of Cabinet discussions. (2) The cost differential is between $40 and $80 per square metre, the higher rate being compared to newly constructed office space in Canberra. (3) The Government is negotiating for additional rental space in the Canberra region at present. Offers of space in Queanbeyan are also being considered by my Department at the present time. (Question No. 3170) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What was the (a) gross and (b) net return per tonne to wheat growers from the Australian Wheat Board in each State in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1983-84 and (iii) 1982-83. (2) What was the increase in the consumer price index (CPI) in each of those years. (3) Was the increase in net returns to growers in each of those years below the CPI: If so, why. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sales of a season's wheat and the repayment of borrowings on that wheat are made by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) over a number of years and the resultant income and expenditure are pooled on a national basis. Payments to growers, other than the interim and final advance, are made only when all borrowings are extinguished. I am advised that none of the wheat pools for the 1982-83, 1983-84 or 1984-85 seasons have been finalised at this stage. However, the AWB has estimated the average gross and net return per tonne Australian Standard White (ASW) basis to growers in each State as follows: $ per tonne NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. 1982-83 Gross Return... 177.31 177.31 177.31 177.31 179.3 177.31 Net Return... 139.72 145.35 144.98 157.59 151.05 161.49 1983-84 Gross Return... 153.74 153.74 153.74 153.74 153.74 153.74 Net Return... 112.29 117.91 114.97 131.24 124.09 136.26 1984-85 Gross Return... 155.35 155.35 155.35 155.35 155.35 155.35 Net Return... 114.24 121.35 118.75 135.41 127.11 139.95 (2) Figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show increases in the consumer price index (CPI) of 11.5% in 1982-83, 6.9% in 1983-84 and 4.3% in 1984-85. (3) Yes. Returns for wheat depend to a large degree on the international market price prevailing at the time of sale. Prices in 1982-83 were considerably higher even in absolute terms than 1984-85 prices. Production and stock increases in the period 1982-1984 in both the United States and the European Community under the influence of domestic subsidy programs, were major causes of declining world prices. (Question No. 3200) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 February, 1986: Has the European Economic Community banned the use of growth promoting hormones in the livestock industries; if so, what are the proposals of the Federal and State Governments to deal with this matter? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At a meeting of the EEC Council of Agricultural Ministers on 20 December 1985, it was agreed that all growth promotant hormones should be banned from use in livestock production. The ban is to become effective in member countries from 1 January 1988 with the exception of UK which has a derogation until 1 January 1989. (2) Third countries, such as Australia, are not required to impose a similar ban but will be expected to provide satisfactory guarantees that meat consigned to the Community is not derived from animals which have been treated with growth promotant hormones, and does not contain any hormone residues. The exact form of the guarantees has not yet been specified. (3) I have asked for advice from the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council and expect to receive the Council's report in the very near future. (4) The issue has been considered by the Australian Agricultural Council and will be further reviewed in the light of advice from the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council. (Question No. 3483) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to confirm that the Soviet Union has now deployed more than 135 SS-20 intermediate range missiles in central Siberia and East of Lake Baikal. (2) What is the range of the SS120. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Soviet Union does not normally make such information about its forces public. The Government has seen statements to this effect by a number of senior United States Administration officials and has no reason to dispute them. (2) No information is available from Soviet sources but publications such as the SIPRI Yearbooks, the United States Defense Department's Soviet Military power and NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons (NATO Information Service 1984) place the range of the SS-20 in the vicinity of 4400-5000 kilometres. (Question No. 3524) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has his attention been drawn to reports of allegations of chemical weapons used in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict; if so, what action has he taken to confirm the accuracy of the reports. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I draw the honourable member's attention to a statement I made on these and related matters which appeared in Hansard on 5 September 1984, pp 569-570. (Question No. 3576) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Was the television program Hypothetical in which he featured amongst others, funded by the Government; if so, on what basis, at what cost and how were the costs broken up. (2) Were any aspects of the program scripted by officers of his Department. (3) Was any invitation to appear extended to any Opposition member other than the member for Warringah. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) As part of its commission from the Department of Foreign Affairs for a documentary video on the issues of peace and disarmament for community and educational purposes, Film Australia proposed that the program take the form of a forum on these issues involving me and other parliamentarians and community leaders. When the services of Mr Geoffrey Robertson, the moderator of the ABC's Hypothetical series, became available for the forum, it was agreed that the program would be filmed in the Hypothetical format. This was organised and videotaped by Film Australia on 22 January 1986 in Sydney. It was agreed between Film Australia and the ABC that in return for the ABC meeting Mr Robertson's fee, the ABC would have access to the film footage of the forum and, on payment of a fee to Film Australia, the right to edit and use the footage for broadcast as an edition of the ABC's Hypothetical series. The Department of Foreign Affairs did not pay the ABC anything, either directly or indirectly, for the production of the Hypothetical program, which was broadcast on 4 March. The Department is paying Film Australia up to $143,000 for producing the community video. This video has been edited by Film Australia and includes background material on Australia's role in disarmament and arms control. This is one of the Government-sponsored projects to mark the International Year of Peace which were announced on 10 July 1985. Distribution of the video, which is entitled In Pursuit of the Possible, is currently being worked out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Film Australia. It is expected that the video will be available for distribution to educational and community groups by the end of April. (2) An officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs assisted the moderator of the program, Mr Geoffrey Robertson, with research and technical details on the issues of disarmament and arms control. Mr Robertson himself was however solely responsible for the content of the script and its presentation during taping of the program. (3) No. (Question No. 3577) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Further to his answer to a question without notice on 13 February 1986 (Hansard, pages 468-9), in which he stated that money is to be provided for the production of educative materials, including a video for schools and other interested bodies, what company or organisation is filming, producing, scripting and directing the video that will promote the cause of peace. (2) When will this video be ready for viewing at schools and to other interested bodies. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See answer to Question No. 3576 (Question No. 3579) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Further to his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 13 February, 1986 page 468) concerning funding of CSIRO research into theories related to the nuclear winter, what sum has been granted to the CSIRO to conduct the research into the theory. (2) What expertise does the CSIRO have in this field. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $140,000. (2) The CSIRO has a Division of Atmospheric Research at Aspendale, Victoria. The research into the implications of a nuclear winter for the Southern Hemisphere will be carried out by a team led by Dr Barrie Pittock, an atmospheric physicist with an international reputation for his research into the effects of nuclear war. Dr Pittock was lead author of an international report on the ``Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War'' under the auspices of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, a subsidiary body of the International Council of Scientific Unions. Dr Pittock's team of researchers will include Mr Ian Galbally and Dr Peter Manins, both of whom have published in the field of nuclear winter studies. The CSIRO research will be the first to concentrate on the effects of nuclear war in the northern hemisphere on the climate of the southern hemisphere. This research will take advantage of the Division of Atmospheric Research's general work in two areas: the general circulation of the atmosphere and atmospheric convection. Without the IYP grant it would not be possible for the CSIRO to carry out specific nuclear winter research. (Question No. 3581) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What specific qualifications or contributions has each member of the committee that will be making recommendations on who should receive peace awards made in the field of international relations. (2) Do recipients of the medals have to comply with criteria such as that applied to International Year of Peace grant applications regarding non-criticism of Government policy. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I appointed the seven members of the Australian Peace Awards committee on a personal basis. They are all prominent Australians and represent a cross-section of the Australian community. The Australian Peace Awards are not intended only for persons who have made a contribution to peace in the field of international relations. In line with the United Nations objectives for the International Year of Peace, nominations are sought of individuals and organisations that have made an outstanding contribution to the cause of peace in one or more of the following categories: (a) by work that stimulates concerted and effective action by the United Nations, its member States, inter-government organisations, non-government organisations, educational, cultural, academic institutions and the mass media in: (i) promoting peace, international security and co-operation on the basis of the UN Charter; (ii) resolving conflict by peaceful means (b) by work that strengthens the United Nations as the principal international system devoted to the promotion and maintenance of peace by: (i) encouraging member States to renew their commitment to the principles of the Charter and to implement these principles effectively; (ii) resolving conflict by peaceful means (c) by work that strengthens the United Nations as the principal international system devoted to the promotion and maintenance of peace by: (i) encouraging member States to renew their commitment to the principles of the Charter and to implement these principles effectively; (ii) enhancing the effectiveness of the Security Council in fulfilling its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; (iii) increasing public awareness and support for United Nations activities. (d) by work that focuses attention and encourages reflection on the basic requirements of peace in the contemporary world, in particular: (i) the inter-relationship of peace, economic development and social progress; (ii) the urgent need for disarmament and the prevention of nuclear catastrophe; (iii) the elimination of racial discrimination and apartheid; (iv) the exercise of human rights and freedom as an essential element of peace; (v) peace as a requirement for the satisfaction of such human needs as food, shelter, health, education, labour and a beneficial environment; (vi) preparation for life in peace, seen as a process in which education, science, culture, religion and the mass media play important roles, and which requires the effective participation of various social groups, especially women, youth, the elderly, war veterans and professionals; (vii) the role of international co-operation, dialogue, mutual understanding and trust in the maintenance of peace with the involvement of Governments, parliaments and non-government organisations. (2) No. The Awards, which will consist of medallions inscribed with the United Nations International Year of Peace motif, will be made to individuals and organisations in the light of the criteria described above. The only other criteria involved is that nominees should be Australian citizens or residents of Australia or should have an established Australian link. Dr Blewett —On 9 April 1986 (Hansard, page 1887) Mr Porter asked me the following question without notice: (1) I refer the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health to the information provided by the Minister for Health last Friday in Question Time regarding the case raised by Dr Parker of Newcastle. The Minister advised that contact had been made with the solicitor representing one of the two doctors who had approached Dr Parker in Newcastle. Why did not the Health Insurance Commission officers undertaking this in-house review directly approach the two high income earning doctors who were in the employ of Dr Edelsten? (2) If they were unable to find them, did they request assistance from the Federal Police? If not, why not? (3) Has the Government made a decision regarding a full Federal Police inquiry into this case? If not, when will it? The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Dr Parker made his initial complaint to the Australian Medical Association on 4 March 1986 and then to the media on 10 March 1986, but I am advised that no formal complaint was made to the NSW Police, Australian Federal Police or the Health Insurance Commission. The Commission became aware of the allegations only after the matter had received media coverage and by that time the Sydney doctors involved had sought legal advice and it was not possible for Commission Officers to obtain an interview with those doctors. There was no need to seek assistance from the Australian Federal Police in identifying or locating either doctor. The Health Insurance Commission is still, and has been since March 11 1986, seeking to interview the doctors concerned. The Government has not sought, to date, to have the matter examined by the Federal Police since the matter is still, at this stage, in the hands of the proper initial investigating authority, namely the Health Insurance Commission. The Government has never ruled out a possible reference to the Federal Police pending its receipt of further reports from the Health Insurance Commission on this matter. The only offence that has been highlighted at this time is that of the malicious damage to Dr Parker's surgery window. I am advised that the Newcastle police examined the circumstances surrounding that incident but considered that it was only one of a spate of incidents of vandalism that occurred in the area at that time. In regard to the alleged threats to Dr Parker, I understand that private prosecution has been commenced by Dr Parker and that summonses issued in relation to that matter were returnable on 4 April 1986, which proceedings make further comment on this matter sub-judice. (Question No. 2323) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so, (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The relevant agencies are the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, and the Tiwi Land Council. The response in respect of each agency is as follows: Department of Aboriginal Affairs (1) Expenditure in (a) 1983-84 was $208,488 and (b) 1984-85 was $241,734. (2) The nature of the expenditure for public relations was as follows: 1983-84-Publications $104,966; Displays $12,564; Pictorial and Visual $64,152. Other expenditure incurred was $26,806 for support services for media and communications activities, including transcriptions and media monitoring. 1984-85-Publications $105,465; Displays $27,572; Pictorial and Visual $63,870; Transcriptions $8,092 and Other $36,735. (3) No outside assistance was sought. Aboriginal Development Commission (1) Expenditure on public relations by the Aboriginal Development Commission in (a) 1983-84 was $8,177.46 and in (b) 1984-85 was $12,694.60. (2) Details of the expenditure are: 1983-84-Publications $3,209.46; Displays $2,332; Pictorial and Visual $2,636. 1984-85-Publications $11,137.45; Displays $256; Pictorial and Visual $446.15, Support Services $855. (3) Outside assistance was obtained on one occasion only. Dr Calvin Miller was hired as a consultant to write a number of articles related to ADC funded projects. Dr Miller's assistance was sought because of his experience in writing on matters related to Aboriginal affairs and his local knowledge of the Aboriginal communities concerned. The cost of Dr Miller's consultancy was $3,209.46. Aboriginal Hostels Limited (1) Expenditure incurred in (a) 1983-84 was $22,837 and in (b) 1984-85 was $43,741. (2) The nature of expenditure was: 1983-84-Annual Report $13,641; Company Magazine $2,918; support services, including media monitoring and transcriptions $6,278. 1984-85-Production of Pamphlets $9,034; Annual Report $24,837; Company Magazine $2,423; support services including media monitoring and transcriptions $7,447. (3) No outside assistance was sought. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (1) Expenditure incurred in (a) 1983-84 was Nil, and in (b) 1984-85 was $880. (2) The nature of expenditure in 1984-85 was the production and printing of a brochure on the Institute. (3) No outside assistance was obtained. Central Land Council (1) Expenditure in (a) 1983-84 was Nil, and in (b) 1984-85 was $19,777. (2) The nature of expenditure in 1984-85 was the production and printing of information material for distribution to 54 Aboriginal communities in Central Australia and production of a documentary video on Aboriginal land rights matters. (3) No outside assistance was obtained. Northern Land Council (1) Expenditure incurred by the Northern Land Council in (a) 1983-84 was $56,362.08 and in (b) 1984-85 was $59,613.25. (2) The nature of expenditure for public relations was as follows: 1983-84 part of production costs of the video Care That Country $30,025; production of publications $14,296.08; and engagement of public relations consultants Michels Warren to promote the Council's position on mining $12,041. 1984-85 balance of production costs of the video Care That Country $20,337; production of publications $14,663.25; and engagement of public relations consultants Michels Warren $24,613. (3) Yes. (a) Michels Warren. (b) a total of $36,654 was paid to Michels Warren in 1983-84 and 1984-85. (c) specialist assistance was required to promote the Land Council's position on mining. Tiwi Land Council (1) Nil. (2) and (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 2705) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern African Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or Statutory Authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purposes for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Toora-Single Women's Shelter receives funding from the ACT Health Authority. (3) The need for the position and the funds to support it were thoroughly investigated prior to approval. (4) (a) and (b) Yes. (5) No, the grant is specifically for salaries and wages costs for the employment of an alcohol and drug worker to counsel and educate clients of the Shelter. Examination of the quarterly financial returns ensures there is no departure from the authorised use of the grant money. (6) Because of the status of the women assisted by the Toora-Single Women's Shelter and in particular those in need of alcohol and drug counselling, the Centre could not raise sufficient money to fund the counsellor. (7) I understand that the Authority expects that Toora will apply for further funding in 1986-87. Funding will depend on a satisfactory examination of audited finan- cial statements and other reports for this financial year. On 12 December 1985, my colleague the Minister for Territories assumed responsibility for the ACT Health Authority. (Question No. 3296) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What are the guidelines for the transfer of clients from unemployment to sickness and invalid benefits. (2) How many persons were transferred from unemployment to (a) sickness and (b) invalid benefits in each State and Territory in each of the years 1981 to 1985 and 1986 to the date of answering this question. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Employment Service advises my Department where it is considered that a claimant for, or person in receipt of, unemployment benefit is unlikely to be placed in employment due to their age or physical, mental or social disability, other personal characteristics or a combination of these. Eligibility for other social security payments including invalid pension and sickness benefit is considered in these cases. Unemployment beneficiaries may also, on their own initiative, lodge claims for sickness benefit or invalid pension. (2) (a) (b) The following tables show the number of unemployment benefit recipients transferring to sickness benefit and invalid pension for the twelve months ended 11 November 1983, 9 November 1984 and 8 November 1985. Corresponding information prior to 1983 is not available. Statistics included in the tables are based on quarterly surveys of unemployment benefit recipients. The processing of the first survey for 1986 (February) will commence shortly and the relevant information will be available in May. Table 1 NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFICIARIES TRANSFERRING TO SICKNESS BENEFIT Twelve Months ended- 11.11.1983 9.11.1984 8.11.1985 NSW... 13,262 13,637 12,462 VIC... 7,385 7,188 6,032 QLD... 7,223 7,157 7,099 SA... 3,829 3,458 3,144 WA... 3,344 2,847 2,643 Tas... 994 983 816 NT... 384 412 406 ACT... 333 281 241 Aust... 36,754 35,963 32,843 Table 2 NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFICIARIES TRANSFERRING TO INVALID PENSION Twelve Months Ended- 11.11.1983 9.11.1984 8.11.1985 NSW... 509 810 912 VIC... 1,102 1,420 1,266 QLD... 339 473 477 SA... 562 511 408 WA... 360 523 524 Tas... 95 127 121 NT... 39 63 60 ACT... 21 16 9 Aust... 3,027 3,943 3,777 (Question No. 3372) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) How many children aged between 1 and 18 years attracted payment of family allowance in (a) 1984 and (b) 1985. (2) How any children aged (a) less than 12, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14 and (e) 15 had family allowance paid to their parents, notwithstanding the fact that the children were financially independent of their parents. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) At 30 June 1984, there were 4,013,358 children aged one or more but under 18 whose parents were receiving family allowance for them; there were an additional 214,336 aged under one year whose parents were receiving the allowance. The corresponding figures at 30 June 1985 were 4,011,811 and 212,838 respectively. (2) Family allowance is not payable to children; the allowance for a child 16 years or younger is payable to the person having the care, custody and control of the child. Financial dependency is not a condition of eligibility for family allowance in respect of such children. Accordingly, this information is not collected by the Department. (Question No. 3395) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) How many recipients of unemployment benefits aged under 18 years in each State live in the home of their parents. (2) Why are unemployment benefits paid to persons under 18 years of age who are living at home. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The information sought is not available from Departmental records. The Department's statistics are by-products of the claim assessment process and there is no provision on unemployment benefit claim forms to record whether a beneficiary's address is the same as that of his/her parents. Labour force data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, however, indicate that about 91 per cent of unemployed persons under 18 years are `members of a family'. If the proportion of unemployment beneficiaries under 18 years living with their parents is similar, the number of such beneficiaries living with their parents was about 33,000 at November 1985 (the latest date for which such information is available). Separate figures for individual States and Territories cannot be calculated, owing to insufficient data. (2) Unemployment benefit may be payable to people who are unemployed, able and willing to undertake suitable paid work and who are taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. As the honourable member will be aware, the Australian Government has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of income support and other policies for youth. An outline of the Government decisions taken in the context of the 1985-86 Budget is contained in Budget Paper No. 13 circulated by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs and the Minister for Finance. Unemployment benefit will continue to be paid to eligible persons under 18 years of age who are living at home. (Question No. 3583) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has the peace movement created the political climate which forced the Government to adopt a cautious approach to PADEX as claimed in Peace Studies, dated 6 February 1986. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 3618) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What progress has been made with negotiations for a minerals regime in Antarctica. (2) What action has the Government taken to (a) preserve Australia's claim to sovereignty within these negotiations and (b) protect the environment in the development of the minerals regime. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1982, there have been seven rounds of negotiations between Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties aimed at developing an agreement which would govern any future minerals activity in Antarctica. A revised draft regime prepared by the Chairman of the Special Consultative Meeting, Mr Beeby of New Zealand, has assisted negotiations during the past three rounds. During the negotiations to date, progress has been made in the search for generally acceptable solutions to the central issues of the objectives and principles, and the composition and functions and decision-making procedures, of the institutions of the regime, and in clarifying a number of detailed issues. It has become clear that many accommodations will ultimately need to be found within such a regime between: the interests of claimant states and those of non-claimants; the perceptions of market economy countries and those of non-market economies; the concerns of those interested in developing Antarctica's resources potential and those interested in the protection of the Antarctic environment; the interests of the super-powers and other parties; and the special interests of developing countries as well as the overall interests of the international community. This process will be continued at the eighth round of the negotiations which will be hosted by Australia in Hobart from 14 to 25 April. (2) The Government supports the maintenance of Australian sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia's position in this regard is protected by the terms of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. The Government is acting to preserve Australian sovereign interests in the context of the Antarctic minerals negotiations. This will require an Article similar to Article IV and some special position in regard to any exploration for, or development of, minerals in the Australian area. Australia is also working actively to ensure that principles are established and mechanisms are put in place within an Antarctic minerals regime which will ensure that the Antarctic environment is stringently safeguarded.